SS symmetry

Article
Finite Element Study of a Threaded Fastening:
The Case of Surgical Screws in Bone
J. A. López-Campos 1 , A. Segade 1, *, E. Casarejos 1 ID
, J. R. Fernández 2 ID
, J. A. Vilán 1 ID
and
P. Izquierdo 1
1 Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Máquinas y Motores Térmicos y Fluidos, Universidad de Vigo,
Campus as Lagoas Marcosende s/n, Vigo 36310, Spain; joseangellopezcampos@uvigo.es (J.A.L.-C.);
e.casarejos@uvigo.es (E.C.); jvilan@uvigo.es (J.A.V.); pabloizquierdob@uvigo.es (P.I.)
2 Departamento de Matemática Aplicada I, Universidad de Vigo, Campus as Lagoas Marcosende s/n,
Vigo 36310, Spain; jose.fernandez@uvigo.es
* Correspondence: asegade@uvigo.es; Tel.: +34-986-818-795




Received: 13 July 2018; Accepted: 10 August 2018; Published: 11 August 2018


Abstract: This paper studies the stress state of a threaded fastening by using Finite Element (FE)
models, applied to surgical screws in cortical bone. There is a general interest in studying the stress
states induced in the different elements of a joint caused by the thread contact. Analytical models were
an initial approach, and later FE models allowed detailed studies of the complex phenomena related
to these joints. Different studies have evaluated standard threaded joints in machinery and structures,
being the thread symmetric. However, surgical screws employ asymmetric thread geometry, selected
to improve the stress level generated in the bone. Despite the interest and widespread use, there is
scarce documentation on the actual effect of this thread type. In this work, we discuss the results
provided by FE models with detailed descriptions of the contacts comparing differences caused by
the materials of the joint, the thread geometry and the thread’s three-dimensional helical effects.
The complex contacts at the threaded surfaces cause intense demand on computational resources that
often limits the studies including these joints. We analyze the results provided by one commercial
software package to simplify the threaded joints. The comparison with detailed FE models allows a
definition of the level of uncertainty and possible limitations of this type of simplifications, and helps
in making suitable choices for complex applications.

Keywords: threaded joints; screws; finite element model; ANSYS; contact problem

1. Introduction
Threaded parts are the most widely deployed mechanical joint in machinery design. The most
common threads for machinery are symmetric ones, typically metric and Whitworth, see Figure 1b,c.
A key characteristic of a joint is the load distribution pattern through the threads along the depth path
of the joint. This pattern helps when analyzing the joint’s performance in some applications, especially
if the material characteristics of the joint parts are rather different from those of the fastener part. That is
the case of surgical screws, applied to fasten bone plates to heal broken bones in reduction procedures.
Screws and plates are usually made of stainless steel or titanium and both have similar success rates
in fracture fixation applications. In terms of deployment, there is a preference for stainless steel
orthopaedic devices in the USA and for titanium in Europe [1]. For screws, stainless steel allows better
torque control but the tissue integration with titanium shows smaller inflammatory responses [1,2].
Since we focus this work on the thread geometry, we chose stainless steel as the reference material to
perform this study, without lack of generality.

Symmetry 2018, 10, 335; doi:10.3390/sym10080335 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry

Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 2 of 13

Early analytical results [3–5] showed that the three threads just under the head, considering a bolt
or screw for reference, take more than 50% of the applied load. These models were based on defining
the rigidity of the parts of the joint and then analyzing the stresses caused in the geometrical sections
of interest. These results were in line with common empirical experience of broken parts in failed joints.
Analytical models were developed further to describe more complex joint effects such as the bending
of the threads, compression of the nut, etc. [6–8], and provided more detailed descriptions such as the
thread fillet stress, joint efficiency, etc. [9]. The state-of-the-art analytical models are implemented in
the reference [10] with procedures to assess bolted joints, used as a de-facto standard guideline.
The numerical methods applied to mechanical calculations allowed major new approaches to more
complex cases, and were immediately applied to the analysis of joints—always critical parts of any
mechanical assembly. In the initial studies, using Finite Element (FE) methods the joints were modelled
by using an axisymmetric description [11–14]. Typically, the authors revisited the state-of-the-art
analytical models to cross check the results and search for possible influencing effects lying beneath the
simplifications introduced, which the powerful numerical tools could directly address. The models also
grew in complexity by introducing three-dimensional effects caused by the real helical geometry [15]
and the pre-loading of the joint with a calculated torque [16–18] usually applied to bolts. Typically,
geometric models are defined with sufficient detail so as to reproduce the thread effects in the parts.
This search for detail has meant that the need for model definition and computing time is continuously
increasing and the study of multi-joint assemblies has become a highly time-consuming problem that
includes complex contact modelling.
The study of cases involving surgical screws usually focuses on analyzing the influence of the
mechanical effects on more subtle biological or physiological processes, typically cellular osteosynthesis.
Such studies clearly face the challenge of applying a complex detailed model and the calculation
requirements can be unfeasibly demanding [19,20]. Sometimes the authors opt to use a highly
simplified model [21], and commonly simplify the contact at the thread regions assuming cylindrical
glued surfaces [22–24]. This selection may cause an immediate overestimation of the assembly stiffness
and therefore hinder the study of some unnoticed effects. The optimal compromise would be the
application of simple-to-implement methods that have limited computational cost but can provide
realistic results. Software packages dedicated to developing FE models include tools to describe
different joint formats efficiently. ANSYS (ANSYS Inc., PA, USA) offers a specific tool (version 17, 2017)
for threaded joints, which, despite simple implementation [25], is not documented and leaves the user
responsible for any type of application in case studies. This tool has been developed for symmetric
threads (Metric and Whitworth).
This study focuses on analyzing joint models for threaded parts related to surgical applications
when two different materials are in contact: bone and steel. We selected the reverse buttress-shaped
HA thread as described for surgical screws according to ISO5835, ISO6475 and ISO9268. These screws
are applied to cortical bones to fasten bone plates for reduction healing procedures. The HA thread is
asymmetric (Figure 1a) and its design maximizes the contact area and minimizes the stress in the bone
regions, while supporting the typical single direction loads of the application.
This work aims to contribute towards the knowledge of surgical threads studying them with
2D axisymmetric models, full 3D models and also testing the use of simplified bolt thread modelling
software initially devoted to symmetric threads. If the use of this simplified modelling could be
demonstrated, the studies including plates and bolts would be highly improved in terms of efficiency
for both the model definition and the computing demand, while preserving the accuracy of the
description. The work is organized as follows. Section 2 describes a detailed two-dimensional
axisymmetric FE model to study specifically the load sharing in the threads and the stress state in
the bone bulk regions next to the joint, depending on the thread types. Then, Section 3 analyses
a three-dimensional model to compare any differences emerging from the volumetric geometry.
Section 4 deals with the application and comparison of a simplified model that could be an option
 Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 3 of 13

when describing
Symmetry 2018, 10, the threaded
x FOR joints if properly implemented. We also describe possible size-scale
PEER REVIEW 3 of 13
effects and computing time issues in Section 5.

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 1. Drawing of the threads according to (a), ISO5835-HA; (b), metric ISO68; (c), Withworth BS84.
94 Figure 1. Drawing of the threads according to (a), ISO5835-HA; (b), metric ISO68; (c), Withworth BS84.

95 2. Axisymmetric Two-Dimensional
2. Axisymmetric Two-DimensionalFE
FEModel
Model
96 To To
build a reference
build a referencemodel
modelfor our studies
for our we used
studies we used an axisymmetric
an axisymmetric geometry
geometry based on the
based on ISO68
the
97 ‘metric’
ISO68thread.
‘metric’This caseThis
thread. study allows
case studythe results
allows thetoresults
be crosschecked with previous
to be crosschecked works based
with previous works on
98 analytic
based[8] onand FE models
analytic [8] and[15].FE Thus,
modelswe[15]. canThus,
comparewe thecan effect
compare of having different
the effect materials
of having in the
different
99 joints
materials in the the
by including joints
bonebyandincluding
finally we the can
bone and finally
modify we can to
the geometry modify the geometry
the asymmetric to the to
HA thread
100 compare
asymmetric HA threaddue
the differences to compare the differences
to the geometry, while due to thethe
keeping geometry,
materialswhile
andkeeping
contactthe materials
definitions.
101 and contact definitions.
We used as our case study the geometry of ISO68 M2 and 2 mm diameter ISO5835-HA screws.
102 For the We joint,used
eightas our
full case study
threads ofthe
thegeometry of ISO68
screw inserted M2the
into andplate,
2 mmwithdiameter ISO5835-HA
internal screws.
thread, were used.
103 TheForplate has a depth equivalent to 10 threads, and a width equivalent to three times the used.
the joint, eight full threads of the screw inserted into the plate, with internal thread, were screw’s
104 nominal
The plate has a depth equivalent to 10 threads, and a width equivalent to three times the screw’s
diameter. Therefore, the stress distributions can develop with no geometrical limitations.
105 nominal diameter. Therefore, the stress distributions can develop with no geometrical limitations.
The model was defined with a mesh of rectangular linear elements (PLANE 182 type in the
106 The model was defined with a mesh of rectangular linear elements (PLANE 182 type in the
software) with axisymmetric option. Due to the different geometrical characteristics of the symmetric
107 software) with axisymmetric option. Due to the different geometrical characteristics of the symmetric
108 andand
non-symmetric screws, we selected different element sizes in the contact region, which is especially
non-symmetric screws, we selected different element sizes in the contact region, which is
109 especially important tocurvatures
important to define the of the HA of
define the curvatures thread
the HA properly, see Figure
thread properly, see2.Figure
We used
2. We0.015
usedmm0.015element
mm
110 element size for the model of ISO68 threads producing 6500 elements, with a structured mesh; andmm
size for the model of ISO68 threads producing 6500 elements, with a structured mesh; and 0.010
111 element
0.010 mmsize element
for the model
size forof theHAmodelthreads
of HAproducing 36,000 elements.
threads producing Mesh sensitivity
36,000 elements. analyses
Mesh sensitivity
112 showed
analysesa correct
showed convergence.
a correct convergence.
113 Contacts
Contacts were
weremodelled
modelled using frictionalcontacts
using frictional contactswhose
whose coefficients
coefficients are defined
are defined in Table
in Table 1. In 1.
114 In addition, augmented
addition, augmented Lagrange
Lagrange formulation
formulation was wasused used
in orderin to
order to guarantee
guarantee good convergence
good convergence as well
115 as well
as low aspenetration
low penetration in contacts. We checked
in contacts. that penetration
We checked was negligible
that penetration in comparison
was negligible with the
in comparison
116 withlocal
thedeformation values. Because
local deformation values. of the highofvalue
Because of thevalue
the high frictionofcoefficient,
the friction wecoefficient,
used a full Newton
we used a
117 fullmethod
Newton tomethod
solve thetoFEsolve
model but
the FEadditionally
model but applied an unsymmetrical
additionally solver to deal with
applied an unsymmetrical the non-
solver to deal
118 withsymmetric stiffness matrix. In the case of models where only steel is used,
the non-symmetric stiffness matrix. In the case of models where only steel is used, as friction as friction coefficient is
119 lower, the stiffness matrix could be considered symmetric, and the un-symmetrical solver is not
120 needed.
 Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 4 of 13

Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR

coefficient PEERthe
is lower, REVIEW
stiffness matrix could be considered symmetric, and the un-symmetrical solver 4 of 13
is not needed.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Drawing of the geometry and mesh defined for the two-dimensional axisymmetric Finite
1 Figure 2.Element
Drawing (FE)of the geometry
models. and
Upper panels: meshview
general defined for ISO68
of threads the two-dimensional axisymmetric
(a) and ISO5845-HA (b). Note that Finite
2 the number of inserted threads is the same in both cases. Lower panels: detailed view
Element (FE) models. Upper panels: general view of threads ISO68 (a) and ISO5845-HA (b). Note that of threads
ISO68 (c) and ISO5845-HA (d). The scale is now the same and the different size is given by the thread
3 the number of inserted threads is the same in both cases. Lower panels: detailed view of threads ISO68
pitch definition.
4 (c) and ISO5845-HA (d). The scale is now the same and the different size is given by the thread pitch
5 definition.
The material properties used in the models were defined for the surgical recommended AISI-316
stainless steel with elastic properties. The cortical bone was considered as isotropic following the
6 The works
material properties which
[19–21,24,26–28], used studied
in the cases
models wereto defined
referring human and foralso
theto surgical recommended
animal bones, which are AISI-
7 an important
316 stainless steel withresearch field
elastic and source The
properties. of intense research
cortical bone [29,30]. The thread contacts
was considered were defined
as isotropic following the
as frictional type with friction coefficient value 0.1 for steel-steel [15] and 0.37 for bone-steel [31,32].
8 works [19–21,24,26–28], which studied cases referring to human and also to animal bones, which are
The material and tribological values used in our work are listed in Table 1.
9 an important research field and source of intense research [29,30]. The thread contacts were defined
0 as frictional typeTable
with1. friction coefficient
Material properties valuecoefficients
and friction 0.1 for steel-steel [15]
for the materials and
used 0.37
in the for bone-steel [31,32].
FE model.
1 The material and tribological values used in our work are listed in Table 1.
Steel AISI-316L Bone
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 193 16
2 Table 1. Material properties and friction coefficients
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
for the materials
0.3
used in the FE model.
Density (g/cm3 ) 7850 1900
Yield Stress (MPa] Steel290
AISI-316L 102 Bone
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 193
Steel-Steel Steel-Bone16
Poisson’s ratio
Friction coefficient 0.10.3 0.37 0.3
Density (g/cm3) 7850 1900
Yield Stress (MPa] 290 102
Steel-Steel Steel-Bone
Friction coefficient 0.1 0.37
 Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 5 of 13

To define the boundary conditions, a 200 N axial force was applied to the screw while the thread
was fixed at its top as shown in Figure 3. This load value produces maximal tensional values in the
bone about the material
Symmetry yield
2018, 10, x FOR PEER stress.
REVIEW We performed tests for ISO68 threads with steel-steel
5 of 13 contact,
ISO68 threads with steel-bone contact, and ISO5835-HA threads with steel-bone contact.

(a) (b)

137 Figure 3. Boundary conditions (BC)

(a) application over (b)
two-dimensional model (a) and three-
138 dimensional model (b). The same BC are used in all models and geometries.
Figure 3. Boundary
137 conditions
Figure 3. Boundary (BC) application
conditions over two-dimensional
(BC) application model
over two-dimensional (a) (a)
model andand
three-dimensional
three-
138
model (b).dimensional
The same model (b).used
BC are The same
in allBCmodels
are usedand
in allgeometries.
models and geometries.
139 The results provided the contact stresses at the thread contact, tensional states and internal
140 139 TheThe
deformations. results provided
contact load evaluated the contact atstresses
eachat thread
the threadofcontact,
the jointtensional states and internal
normalized with respect to the
The results
140 provided
deformations. the contact
The contact stresses
load evaluated at thread
at each the thread contact,
of the joint tensional
normalized statesto and
with respect the internal
141 overall of141
200 N
deformations. applied
overall of 200
The toapplied
N
contact theloadscrew waswas
to evaluated
the screw then
atthenplotted.
eachplotted.
threadIn In oforder
order theto jointto normalized
perform perform such
witharespect
such a computation, computation,
we to the we
142 divided 142
the whole
overall
divided
of 200 N contact
the whole
applied definition
contact
to the screw as shown
definition as shown
was then in plotted.
in Figure 4.
Figure 4.
InThus,
Thus, one
order to one
single single such
contact
perform contact
surface for surface for each
each
a computation,
143 thread is defined; all of them are defined with the same conditions. Defining contacts separately
143 threadweisdivided
defined;
144 theall
allows to
of them
whole
compute contact areload defined
the totaldefinition
at eachas
with
shown
thread.
theinsame
Figure
Therefore,
conditions.
4. Thus,
since contact oneDefining
pressure single
is computed
contacts
contact
during surfaceseparately
for
144 allowseach
to145
compute
thread the total
theissolution
defined; allload
process, ofthe
themat each thread.
areextended
integral defined Therefore,
towith
each the same
contact since contact
conditions.
surface provides pressure
Defining
the total is computed
loadcontacts
supported separately during
145 146
allows to
the solution by the thread.
computethe
process, Figure
theintegral 5 depicts
total loadextended the load normalized
at each thread.
to each with
Therefore, respect
contactsince to
surface total
contactapplied load.
pressurethe
provides As stated
is computed [3–
total loadduring supported
147 5], the load of the first thread takes the highest value but it then diminishes continuously through the
146 the solution
by the thread. process, the integral extended to each contact surface provides the total load supported by [3–
148 Figure
grip length.5 depicts the loaddepending
There are differences normalized on the with
material respect
combination to total
due theapplied load. As stated
trade-off effects
the 149
thread.caused
Figure 5 depicts the load normalized with respect to total applied load. As stated [3–5],
147 5], the load of the first by the different
thread rigidities
takes theinvolved.
highestThe steel-steel
value butand steel-bone
it then cases differ up
diminishes to 25% in the
continuously through the
the load
150 ofhigher
the first thread
loads, when takes
comparing the the
highest valuethread.
same ISO68 but itThethen morediminishes continuously
compliant bone causes a more through
even the grip
148 grip length.
length.
There
151 There
sharingareloaddifferences
areofdifferences
betweendepending depending
threads. The HA
on thread
oncauses
the material
the material a slightly combination
higher
combination load
due than
the
duefor
thetrade-off
ISO68 the trade-off effects
steel-
effects caused
149 caused by the different rigidities involved. The steel-steel and steel-bone cases differ up to 25% in thetohigher
by the
152 different
bone contactrigidities involved.
but the differences are lowerThe thansteel-steel
5% in the initialand steel-bone
threads. cases differ up 25% in the
150 higherloads,
loads, when
when comparing
comparing the same the sameISO68 ISO68
thread. thread.
The more The more compliant
compliant bone causesbone a more causes a more even
even sharing
151 sharing of load
of load between
between threads.
threads. The HA Thethread
HA threadcausescausesa slightly a slightly
higher load higher
thanload than the
the ISO68 for ISO68 for steel-
steel-bone
152 bone contact
contact butbutthethedifferences
differences are arelower lower
than than
5% in5% the in the threads.
initial initial threads.

153
154 Figure 4. Contact surface defined to post-process the load per thread values.

153
154 Figure 4. Contact
Figure surface
4. Contact defined
surface definedto
to post-process the
post-process the load
load perper thread
thread values.
values.
 Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 6 of 13
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13

155 155
156 156 Figure
FigureFigure 5.5.Force
5. Force Forcemeasured
measured
measured onon
on each
each
each thread relative
threadrelative
thread to the
relative to the applied
theapplied force.
appliedforce. This
This
force. load
load
This isisdefined
load definedasasthe
is defined the
as the
157 157 contact
contactreaction
reactionon
onthe
thethread.
thread.The
Theresults
resultsare
arefor
for threads
threads ISO68 for steel-steel
steel-steeland
andsteel-bone
steel-bonecontacts,
contact reaction on the thread. The results are for threads ISO68 for steel-steel and steel-bone contacts, contacts,

158 158 and

andfor
forHA
HAthread
threadwith
withsteel-bone
steel-bone contact,
contact, according
according to to the
and for HA thread with steel-bone contact, according to the legend.
thelegend.
legend.

159 AAmore
moreinteresting
interestingevaluation
evaluationfor for the
the joint
joint isis the stress state
the stress state caused
causedby bythe
theloads.
loads.TheThevon vonMises
Mises
159 160 stressA more interesting evaluation for the joint is the stress state caused by the loads. The von Mises
stressmeasured
measuredininthe thebone
bonebulkbulk material
material was was evaluated
evaluated in in aa path
path parallel
paralleltotothe
thescrew
screwaxis,axis,atata a
160 161stress measured distance,
certain
certainradial
in the bone bulk
radial distance,and andas
material was
asaafunction
function of of the
evaluated
the depth,
depth, see
in a path
see Figure
Figure Theparallel
6. The
6. tensional
tensional
toprofile
the screw
profile ininthe
axis,
bulk at a
thebulk
161 162certain radialdepends
material
material distance,
depends ononand
the as a function
thedistance
distance totothe of
thejoint the
jointsosodepth,
different
differentsee Figure
paths
pathswere
were 6.analyzed,
The tensional
analyzed, located
locatedprofile in theofbulk
atatdistances
distances
162 163material
0.125 depends
p, 0.25
of 0.125 p on
p, 0.25 p the
and 0.5distance
and p from
0.5 p from tothe
the the joint so diameter
outermost
outermost different
diameterof paths
ofthe were analyzed,
the internal
internal thread, wherelocated
where atthe
ppisis distances
the pitch of
pitch
163 0.125
164 value. p, 0.25 p
value.Thus, and
Thus,the 0.5
thestressp from
stresschanges the
changescan outermost
canbe beevaluated diameter
evaluated as a function of the
function of internal
of the
the depth thread,
depthandandradial where
radialdistance p is
distancetotothethe
thepitch
164 165value.
joint. The
Thus,
joint. Theresults
the showed
stress
results changes
showed that the
thatcanthestress
be level
level decreases
evaluated
stress when increasing
as a function
decreases when increasing
of the depth radial
radial andposition,
radialasas
position, wastotobebe
distance
was to the
165 166joint.expected.
expected.
The Thus,
results Thus, the
thediscussion
showed that theisstress
discussion isfocused
focused
level on one
oneof
ondecreasesof the distances
thewhen
distances (0.25 p) for
increasing for the
radialthe sake
sakeof ofsimplicity,
position, simplicity,
as was to be
166 167expected.
whileThus,
while other results
other results are rather similar. In Figure 6, the stress level along the
the discussion is focused on one of the distances (0.25 p) for the sake ofatsimplicity,
are rather similar. In Figure 6, the stress level depth
along the path
depthat radial
path distance
radial
167 168while of 0.25
distance p
other of
is plotted.
0.25 pare
results
The depth
is plotted.
rather The
is shown
depthIn
similar.
as a function
is shown
Figureas6,athe
of the pitch
function for a
stressoflevel
better
the pitch comparison
for the
along a better
depth
of both
comparison ISO68
path at of radial
168 169distanceandISO68
both HA threads.
and HA threads.
of 0.25 p is plotted. The depth is shown as a function of the pitch for a better comparison of
169 both ISO68 and HA threads.

170
171 Figure
Figure6.6.Von
VonMises
Misesstress
stressalong
alongaa path
path in
in the bone defined
the bone defined parallel
parallelto
tothe
thescrew
screwaxis
axisand
andseparated
separated
172 0.25p from the outermost diameter of the internal thread. The lines correspond to the calculations
0.25p from the outermost diameter of the internal thread. The lines correspond to the calculations done
170 173 done
withwith a two-dimensional
a two-dimensional axisymmetric
axisymmetric FE model
FE model of ISO68
of ISO68 M2 thread
M2 thread with steel-steel
with steel-steel and steel-
and steel-bone
171 174 bone
Figure 6. contact,
Vonand
contact, and
Mises 2mm
2mmstress HA thread
along
HA thread with
a path
with insteel-bone
bonecontact.
thecontact.
steel-bone defined parallel to the screw axis and separated
172 0.25p from the outermost diameter of the internal thread. The lines correspond to the calculations
173 175 The results show that the decrease of the stress is faster in depth for steel-bone contact than for
done with a two-dimensional axisymmetric FE model of ISO68 M2 thread with steel-steel and steel-
174 176 steel-steel contact. This is caused by the higher compliance of the bone. Indeed, for equivalent size
bone contact, and 2mm HA thread with steel-bone contact.
177 bolts and the same actuating force, the results show a lower stress level for the HA surgical bolts of
178 approximately 40%. This effect is caused by the special design of the HA thread, which is better
175 The results show that the decrease of the stress is faster in depth for steel-bone contact than for
179 adapted to work with more compliant materials.
176 steel-steel contact. This is caused by the higher compliance of the bone. Indeed, for equivalent size
 Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 7 of 13

The results show that the decrease of the stress is faster in depth for steel-bone contact than for
steel-steel contact. This is caused by the higher compliance of the bone. Indeed, for equivalent size
bolts and the same actuating force, the results show a lower stress level for the HA surgical bolts
of approximately 40%. This effect is caused by the special design of the HA thread, which is better
Symmetry
adapted2018, 10, x FOR
to work PEER
with REVIEW
more compliant materials. 7 of 13

180 3.3.Comparison
Comparisonwith
withaaThree-Dimensional
Three-DimensionalFE
FEModel
Model
181 The
The two-dimensional models modelsmay mayhinder
hinder thethe observation
observation of effects
of effects caused caused
by the by the geometry
helical helical
182 geometry through the thread profile. Some authors have addressed this issue
through the thread profile. Some authors have addressed this issue for the UNC-UNF Unified Coarse for the UNC-UNF
183 Unified
and Fine Coarse
pitch and Fine[15]
threads pitch threads
(both [15] (bothHowever,
symmetric). symmetric).
it isHowever,
interestingit to
is study
interesting to studyeffects
the possible the
184 possible
caused by effects caused by the
the asymmetric HAasymmetric HA thread. AFE3-dimensional
thread. A 3-dimensional model of the HA FE model
thread of the HA was
geometry thread
built
185 geometry was built by using a mesh of linear tetrahedral elements (SOLID185) with
by using a mesh of linear tetrahedral elements (SOLID185) with element size 0.02 mm at the complex element size 0.02
186 mm at the
contact complex
regions with contact
aboutregions
4.9 × 10 6 elements,
with about 4.9see× 10 6 elements, see Figure 7. The materials were
Figure 7. The materials were steel and bone as
187 steel and bone
previously as previously
defined, defined,definition
and the contact and the contact definition
was a frictional onewas a frictional
with one with friction
friction coefficient values as
188 coefficient values as before, see Table 1. All remaining settings were imposed
before, see Table 1. All remaining settings were imposed as in the two-dimensional case to generate as in the two- a
189 dimensional
model suitable casefor
to comparing
generate a model suitable
with the for comparing
axisymmetric case. with the axisymmetric case.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Drawing and detail of the screw and plate used for the three-dimensional FE model, showing
190 Figure 7. Drawing and detail of the screw and plate used for the three-dimensional FE model,
the complex mesh defined, with a large density at the thread contact region: (a), global mesh view;
191 showing the complex mesh defined, with a large density at the thread contact region: (a), global mesh
(b), detailed view near the contact region.
192 view; (b), detailed view near the contact region.

193 The results

The results ofofboth
boththethe
two-dimensional
two-dimensional and and
three-dimensional
three-dimensional models can be can
models directly
be compared.
directly
194 The loads per thread slightly change up to 5% in the highest values. In Figure
compared. The loads per thread slightly change up to 5% in the highest values. In Figure 8 the von 8 the von Mises stress
195 measured in the bone bulk material in a path parallel to the screw axis, at distance
Mises stress measured in the bone bulk material in a path parallel to the screw axis, at distance of 0.25 of 0.25 p is plotted.
196 pThe X axis isThe
is plotted. measured
X axis isinmeasured
mm, where 0.6 iswhere
in mm, the thread
0.6 ispitch, and the
the thread twoand
pitch, lines
thecorrespond to the results
two lines correspond
197 of the two-dimensional and three-dimensional models. The start point in
to the results of the two-dimensional and three-dimensional models. The start point in the 3Dthe 3D model was selected
model to
198 coincide with the 2D model due to the initial location of the helical trajectory. The
was selected to coincide with the 2D model due to the initial location of the helical trajectory. The three-dimensional
199 model values differ
three-dimensional by less
model thandiffer
values 5% atbythe initial
less thanthreads,
5% at the and the profiles
initial threads, mimic
and theeach othermimic
profiles closely
200 each other closely along the path. The profiles showed no important differences, either throughradial
along the path. The profiles showed no important differences, either through the depth or the the
201 position,
depth comparing
or the pathscomparing
radial position, at distances 0.125
paths p and 0.50.125
at distances p. Therefore,
p and 0.5 p.the differences
Therefore, for both the
the differences
202 load
for andthe
both the load
stressand
valuestheare keptvalues
stress within are10%kept
for two-dimensional
within 10% for and three-dimensional
two-dimensional models.
and three-
203 However, the model definition and computational cost is notably increased
dimensional models. However, the model definition and computational cost is notably increased forfor the three-dimensional
204 model,
the and it will be discussed
three-dimensional model, and initSection
will be5.discussed in Section 5.
 Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 8 of 13
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

205
206 Figure 8.
Figure 8. Von Mises
Mises stress
stressalong
alonga apath
pathininthe bone
the bonedefined
definedparallel to the
parallel screw
to the axis axis
screw and separated
and separated
207 0.25 pp from
0.25 from the outermost
outermostdiameter
diameterofofthe internal
the thread.
internal TheThe
thread. lines correspond
lines to two-dimensional
correspond to two-dimensional
208 and three-dimensional
and three-dimensional FEFEmodels
modelsforfora aHAHA2 mm
2 mmthread in steel-bone
thread contact.
in steel-bone contact.

209 4. Simplified Bolt Thread Modelling

4. Simplified Bolt Thread Modelling
210 Considering the previous results obtained with FE models including detailed contacts, the
Considering the previous results obtained with FE models including detailed contacts,
211 performance of some implemented methods for simplifying joints in software packages can now be
212 the performance of some implemented methods for simplifying joints in software packages can
compared. ANSYS offers the so-called ‘simplified bolt thread modeling’. It can be applied to two-
213 now be compared.
dimensional ANSYS offers the
and three-dimensional so-called ‘simplified bolt thread modeling’. It can be applied to
models.
214 two-dimensional and three-dimensional
The geometrical definition is rather simple,models.
requiring the definition of two cylinders: one for the
215 screw and the drill hole for the plate. The diameter requiring
The geometrical definition is rather simple, correspondsthetodefinition of two
the thread´s meancylinders: one for the
diameter value.
216 screw and
For the the at
mesh, drill
thehole for the
‘contact’ plate.
region, theThe diameter
element size corresponds
must be so thatto there
the thread´s mean
are at least fourdiameter
elementsvalue.
217 For
perthe mesh,
pitch. The at the ‘contact’
simplified modelregion,
requires thethe
element size must
input values be sopitch
for mean that there are at
diameter, least
pitch four
and elements
thread
218 per pitch.
angle The simplified
to characterize model requires
the threaded thedefined
joint at the input values
region.for mean pitch diameter, pitch and thread
angle to characterize the threaded joint at the defined region.
219 4.1. Comparison of a Symmetric ISO68 Thread
4.1. Comparison of a Symmetric ISO68 Thread
220 The simplified model is firstly compared with the two-dimensional FE model for the ISO68
221 thread
Theand steel-bone
simplified contact,
model the materials
is firstly compared andwith
contacts defined as above, see
the two-dimensional FE Table
model1.for
The simplified
the ISO68 thread
222 model substitutes the M2 screw with a cylinder of thread mean diameter 1.77 mm.
and steel-bone contact, the materials and contacts defined as above, see Table 1. The simplified model The structured
223 mesh was made
substitutes the M2of rectangular
screw with elements
a cylinder(PLANE
of thread152) defined
mean with 101.77
diameter elements
mm. Theper thread pitchmesh
structured and was
224 therefore an element size of 0.04 mm. The recommended value is four elements
made of rectangular elements (PLANE 152) defined with 10 elements per thread pitch and therefore [25], interpreted as a
225 minimum, but having better detail of the stress maps was preferred. The mesh
an element size of 0.04 mm. The recommended value is four elements [25], interpreted as a minimum,was built with 432,560
226 elements. The numerical model input values were the nominal M2 pitch diameter (1.742 mm), pitch
but having better detail of the stress maps was preferred. The mesh was built with 432,560 elements.
227 (0.4 mm) and thread angle (60°).
The numerical model input values were the nominal M2 pitch diameter (1.742 mm), pitch (0.4 mm)
228 The simplified model does not contain geometrical threads and so a straight comparison of load-
and thread angle (60◦ ).
229 per-thread is not possible. Instead, we used the stress state measured in the bone part. The stress was
230 The simplified model does not contain geometrical threads and so a straight comparison of
measured at paths located at radial distances 0.125 p, 0.25 p and 0.5 p, as described before. In Figure 9
231 load-per-thread
the stress state isisshown
not possible. Instead,
for the path wep,used
at 0.25 the stress
for both state measuredaxisymmetric
the two-dimensional in the bone part. The stress
FE model
232 was measured at paths located at radial distances 0.125 p, 0.25 p and 0.5
and the simplified model. The threads reappear now in the results provided by the simplified model p, as described before.
233 In Figure
with clear9stress
the stress
peaks. state is shown
There foroffset
is a slight the path
of theatpeak
0.25 location
p, for both the two-dimensional
between the models. This is axisymmetric
simply
234 FE model and
connected the simplified
to the model.ofThe
relative position thethreads reappear
first thread in thenow in the results provided
two-dimensional by theit simplified
model, while may
235 model with clear stress peaks. There is a slight offset of the peak location between
correspond to some average value in the simplified model. Therefore, this shift is of no interest for the models. This is
236 simply
further connected
discussions.toThe thestress
relative position
pattern of the
is rather first thread
similar and thein the values
peak two-dimensional
differ by no model,
more thanwhile it
237 7%. The
may same behavior
correspond to some and similar value
average valuesin were
the observed
simplified at model.
other radial distances,
Therefore, this0.125
shiftpisand 0.5interest
of no p.
for further discussions. The stress pattern is rather similar and the peak values differ by no more than
7%. The same behavior and similar values were observed at other radial distances, 0.125 p and 0.5 p.
 Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

Symmetry
Symmetry 2018,
2018, 10,10,
335x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 913of 13

238 238
Figure 9. Stress state (von Mises) along a path in the bone defined parallel to the screw axis and
Figure
Figure 9. 9.Stress
Stressstate
state(von
(vonMises)
Mises) along
along aa path
path in
in the
thebone
bonedefined
definedparallel
parallelto to
thethe
screw
screwaxisaxis
andand
239 239 separated 0.250.25
separated
p from
p from
thethe
outermost
outermost
diameter
diameter
of
of
the
the
internalthread.
internal
thread. The
The
lines
lines
correspond
correspond to
totwo-
the
the two-
separated 0.25 p from the outermost diameter of the internal thread. The lines correspond to the
240 240 dimensional
dimensional FE model
FE model and the
and simplified model,
the for an
anISO68
ISO68M2M2thread
thread in steel-bone contact. Thread
two-dimensional FE model andsimplified model,model,
the simplified for for an ISO68 M2inthread
steel-bone contact.
in steel-boneThread
contact.
241 241 pitchpitch
is 0.4is mm.
0.4 mm.
Thread pitch is 0.4 mm.

242 2424.2. Comparison of an

4.2. Comparison Asymmetric
of an AsymmetricHA
HAThread
Thread
4.2. Comparison of an Asymmetric HA Thread
243 243 A second
A second comparison
comparison casecan
case canbebeconsidered
considered for for the
theasymmetric
asymmetric HAHAthreads.
threads.TheThe
simplified
simplified
244model A second
model was comparison
defined with case of
values can be considered
mean thread for the
diameter 1.65asymmetric
mm, pitch HA threads.
diameter 1.41 mmThe simplified
and pitchpitch
244 was defined with values of mean thread diameter 1.65 mm, pitch diameter 1.41 mm and
245 2450.6model
0.6 wasThe
mm. defined
thread with values
angle is notofdefined
mean thread
for diametergeometry.
asymmetric 1.65 mm, The
mm. The thread angle is not defined for asymmetric geometry. The results were evaluated
pitch diameter
results were 1.41 mm and
evaluated pitch
with with
246 0.6input
mm. angle
The thread
valuesanglein theisrange
not defined
of 35° tofor asymmetric
60° geometry.
and only slight The results
differences were evaluated
were found, affecting thewith
246 input angle values in the range of 35°◦ to 60°◦ and only slight differences were found, affecting the
247 input anglevalue
absolute values in the
of the peaksrange
and of 35 to not
therefore 60 affecting
and only theslight differences
following were found, affecting the
discussion.
247 absolute value of the peaks and therefore not affecting the following discussion.
248 absoluteInvalueFigureof10,thethepeaks
von andMises therefore
stress atnot
the affecting
bone along theafollowing
path defineddiscussion.
at a distance of 0.25 p and
248 InInFigure
249 thread angle10,
Figure 60°the
10,
von Mises
is plotted.
the von Mises
stress
The shift at the bone
between
stress at the peaks
along
bone caused
a path
along aby
path defined at
an average ataawas
definedeffect
distance
againof
distance
of0.25
0.25ppand
observed, and
249 thread
250 thread angle
which 60°
is of60
angle ◦is
no is plotted.
interest.
plotted. The
Both shift
Thetheshift between peaks
two-dimensional
between peaksand caused by an average
the simplified
caused model
by an average effect
show
effect was
was again
theagain observed,
sameobserved,
stress
250 251which is
pattern,of no
the interest.
results Both
from the the two-dimensional
simplified model being and the
smoother simplified
and
which is of no interest. Both the two-dimensional and the simplified model show the same model
providing lowershow the
values, same
up to 8% stress
stress
251 252pattern,
pattern, the results from the simplified model being smoother and providing lower values, up toto8%
the
difference,results
in the from
higherthe simplified
stress peaks. model
The being
stresses at smoother
other radial and providing
locations, 0.125 lower
p and values,
0.5 p, up
showed 8%
252 253difference,
similar results.
difference,ininthethehigher
higherstress
stresspeaks.
peaks.The The stresses
stresses at
at other radial locations,
other radial locations,0.125
0.125ppand and0.5
0.5p,p,showed
showed
253 similar
similarresults.
results.

254 Figure 10. Von Mises stress along a path in the bone defined parallel to the screw axis and separated
255 0.25 p from the outermost diameter of the internal thread. The lines correspond to the two-
256 dimensional FE model and the simplified model, for an HA 2 mm thread in steel-bone contact. Thread
254 257 Figure
Figure10.
pitch isVon
10. Von
0.6 Mises
Misesstress
mm. stressalong
alongaapath
path in
in the
the bone defined
defined parallel
paralleltotothe
thescrew
screwaxis
axisand
andseparated
separated
255 0.25
0.25pp from the
theoutermost
outermost diameter
diameter ofinternal
of the the internal
thread. thread.
The linesThe lines correspond
correspond to the two-
to the two-dimensional
256 FE model and
dimensional the simplified
FE model and the model, for model,
simplified an HA for2 mm thread
an HA in steel-bone
2 mm contact. Thread
thread in steel-bone contact.pitch is
Thread
257 0.6 mm.
pitch is 0.6 mm.
 Symmetry 2018,
Symmetry 2018,10,
10,x 335
FOR PEER REVIEW 1010
ofof
1313

258 The results obtained for ISO68 M2 and HA 2 mm analyzed with the two-dimensional FE model
259 The results
and compared withobtained for ISO68
the simplified M2 and
model, withHA 2 proper
the mm analyzed with the two-dimensional
parameterization, show deviations FE of
model
stress
260 of about 7–8%. However, we have found differences up to 40% comparing the stresses causedofby
and compared with the simplified model, with the proper parameterization, show deviations
261 stress ofM2
threads about
and7–8%.
HA However,
(see Sectionwe 2,
have found6).differences
Figure up to 40%
The different comparing
values definingthethestresses
modelcaused
thread
262 by threads M2 and HA (see Section 2, Figure 6). The different values defining the
parameters: thread diameter, pitch diameter and pitch make possible a proper stress evaluation, model thread
263 parameters:
despite the factthread diameter,
that the geometry pitch diameter
is rather and pitch
different make possible
considering a proper
the character stress evaluation,
of ISO68 (symmetric)
264 despite
and the fact that the
HA (asymmetric) geometry is rather different considering the character of ISO68 (symmetric)
threads.
and HA (asymmetric) threads.
265 4.3. Scale Factor Effects
4.3. Scale Factor Effects
266 The
Theprevious
previousdiscussions
discussionshave havebeen
been developed
developed by using threads
by using threadsof of22mm
mmdiameter
diameterasasaareference
reference
267 case study. Further analysis can be made of any size-scale effect that may arise
case study. Further analysis can be made of any size-scale effect that may arise when applying the when applying the
268 simplified
simplifiedmodel
modeltotoother
otherdiameter
diametervalues.
values. We We have
have evaluated
evaluated the the results
resultsofofaasecond
secondset
setofofmodels
models
269 developed for ISO68 M5 and HA 5 mm
developed for ISO68 M5 and HA 5 mm threads. threads.
270 Figure
Figure1111plots
plotsthe
theresults
resultsof ofstress
stress along
along aa path,
path, similarly defined as
similarly defined as before,
before,atatdistance
distance0.250.25p,p,
271 the pitch value now being 1.75 mm. In these tests, a force of 500 N was
the pitch value now being 1.75 mm. In these tests, a force of 500 N was applied. This value applied. This value is rather
is
272 low, compared
rather to the to
low, compared case
theanalyzed for 2for
case analyzed mm,
2 mm,in terms
in termsof of
thethevalues
valuesof of stress state produced.
stress state produced.
273 Therefore,
Therefore,thetheapplication
applicationofofthe themodel
model to to different sizes and
different sizes and also
also different
differentrelative
relativeloads
loadsisistested
tested
274 simultaneously.
simultaneously.As Asshown
shownininthe theresults,
results, the
the stress
stress state values
values areare again
againrather
rathersimilar
similarfor
forboth
boththethe
275 two-dimensional
two-dimensionalFE model and
FE model andthe thesimplified
simplified model,
model, withwith differences
differences in thein the range
same sameforrange for the
the higher
276 higher
peaks.peaks. Possible
Possible effects effects
caused caused by the size-scale
by the size-scale can then can then be in
be excluded excluded in the application
the application of the
of the simplified
277 simplified model preserving
model preserving the conditions
the conditions on mesh size. on mesh size.

278
279 Figure
Figure11.
11.Von
VonMises
Misesstress
stressalong
alongaa path
path in
in the bone defined
defined parallel
parallelto
tothe
thescrew
screwaxisaxisand
andseparated
separated
280 0.25
0.25pp from the
theoutermost
outermost diameter
diameter of theofinternal
the internal
thread. thread.
The linesThe lines correspond
correspond to the two-
to the two-dimensional
281 FE model and
dimensional FE the simplified
model and themodel, for values
simplified model,corresponding to a HA thread
for values corresponding toofa 5HA
mm in steel-bone
thread of 5 mm
282 contact. Thread pitch is 1.75 mm.
in steel-bone contact. Thread pitch is 1.75 mm.

283 5. 5.
Model
ModelDefinition
Definitionand
andComputing
Computing Time
Time

284 Whenselecting
When selecting alternative
alternativemodels
models for for
the definition of the joints
the definition of thein joints
complex in models,
complex an evaluation
models, an
285 of the level of time effort needed to build the model and the time required
evaluation of the level of time effort needed to build the model and the time required for the calculations is needed,
for the
286 and shouldisbeneeded,
calculations balancedand
with the quality
should and confidence
be balanced with the of quality
the expected results. These
and confidence of two
the aspects,
expected
287 time and
results. quality,
These usually oppose
two aspects, time andeach other.usually
quality, The time needed
oppose to build
each other.the model
The timewill depend
needed on the
to build the
288 expertise
model willofdepend
the user,
onand
thethe computing
expertise time
of the on the
user, andcomplexity of the model.
the computing time onTothe compare both times
complexity of the
289 in an objective
model. To compare way,both
the complexity
times in an of objective
the modelway,definition will be treated
the complexity of thein this
modelsection, and also
definition thebe
will
290 computing time for the solver.
treated in this section, and also the computing time for the solver.
291 Onthethe
On oneone hand,
hand, the necessities
the necessities for theformodel
the model definition
definition will bewill be explained
explained in order in order of
of increasing
292 increasing
difficulty: difficulty:

293  Simplified bolt thread modelling. Requires the implementation of a simple geometry (cylinder)
294 to define the thread region, and three input parameters. The mesh needs a simple size control
295 based on the pitch value, and easy to define.
Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 11 of 13

• Simplified bolt thread modelling. Requires the implementation of a simple geometry (cylinder) to
define the thread region, and three input parameters. The mesh needs a simple size control based
on the pitch value, and easy to define.
• Detailed two-dimensional FE model. The geometry for the contact teeth must be fully defined as
a CAD format. The contact regions depend on the number of threads, in this case eight individual
contacts. The mesh requires attention: first, a simple size control by pitch, but also customized
size controls in the thread edges and the fillets, which implies higher time effort for the definition
of the mesh. Indeed, the two-dimensional analysis may not be at all adequate for the overall
problem definition.
• Detailed three-dimensional FE models. Again, the geometry must be fully input in CAD format.
The contact regions depend on the number of threads, and the individual thread-to-thread
contacts. The mesh must be fully customized to obtain smooth transitions at the tiny features.
Small element sizes and growing control are needed to have uniform elements, and to avoid
deformed elements, which produce inaccurate results.
Therefore, the amount of time and attention required to implement the different options is rather
different. The participation of trained personnel becomes critical for defining detailed models in order
to apply proper modelling techniques.
On the other hand, the computing time is also a selection parameter. It will depend on the
machines used for calculation, as a reference, in Table 2 we compare the time needed for the calculation
of the different models developed for this work. The models using a two-dimensional description,
either detailed FE models or simplified models, require relatively low calculation times. However,
three-dimensional models are much more time demanding. Clearly the model selection will have a
major impact on the evaluation of complex models.

Table 2. CPU (Central Processing Unit) solving time of the models (Intel Core i7-4820K 3.70 GHz,
64 GB RAM).

Model Elapsed Time

ISO58 M2 steel-steel contact 2-dim FE 5s
ISO58 M2 steel-bone contact 2-dim FE 5s
ISO5835 HA steel-bone contact 2-dim FE 27 s
ISO5835 HA steel-bone contact 3-dim FE 3187 s
ISO58 M2 steel-bone 2-dim simplified 7s
ISO5835 HA steel-bone 2-dim simplified 9s
ISO5835 HA steel-bone 3-dim simplified 76 s

6. Conclusions
This work has revisited the evaluation of loads and stress distributions caused by threaded joints,
in this case focusing on surgical applications. These joints comprise materials of different rigidity
(steel and bone) and asymmetric thread geometries. Therefore, the aim was to obtain information of
two-dimensional axisymmetric FE models with detailed geometry and contact definitions, and then
compare the differences caused by the asymmetric geometry with respect to the well-established
symmetric threads. Comparing symmetric (ISO68) and asymmetric (ISO5835-HA) threads of similar
diameter, it was found that the load values were quite similar (within 5%) while the stress state can
differ up to 30%, with HA favoring the lower stress state values at the bone material. This result,
despite being practically applied long ago, cannot be found quantified in any public document to the
author’s knowledge.
The comparison of the two-dimensional and three-dimensional FE models showed that the
geometrical influence of three-dimensional features is within a 5% limit. This value is beyond the
interest for many complex applications. Indeed, the use of two-dimensional models gives an excellent
ratio of accuracy in respect to the modeling and computing time.
Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 12 of 13

The use of FE models with multi-joints can easily demand simplification of the joint definitions to
obtain a feasible model. The results of detailed FE models were compared with the results provided by
a simplified algorithm available in a widespread software tool. Despite the simple implementation of
this model, the results differed by no more than 8% with respect to the reference FE models. In this
context, it is important to recall the demands of the different options. The definition of very detailed
models is time consuming, and the increasing number of elements to be characterized is also a source
of errors. Indeed, the computing time is also an important point when selecting an appropriate model.
The comparisons made between the different models and cases are useful input information in order
to make educated choices from the options when defining threaded joints, considering the accuracy of
the output results and the degree of difficulty and time required to build and solve the models.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and Methodology, J.A.V., J.R.F. and E.C.; Software, Formal Analysis
and Data Curation A.S. and J.A.L.-C.; Validation A.S., J.A.L.-C., J.R.F., P.I. and J.A.V.; Supervision J.A.V.;
Writing—Original Draft Preparation P.I.; Writing—Review & Editing E.C.; Funding Acquisition J.R.F. and J.A.V.
Funding: This research was partially funded by Xunta de Galicia under the program Grupos de Referencia Competitiva
with Ref. GRC2015/16. J.A. López-Campos also acknowledges the funding received from Xunta de Galicia under
the program Axudas á etapa predoutoral with Ref. ED481A-2017/045. The work of J.R. Fernández was partially
supported by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain) under the research project MTM2015-66640-P (with
FEDER Funds).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hayes, J.S.; Richards, R.G. The use of titanium and stainless steel in fracture fixation. Expert Rev. Med. Dev.
2010, 7, 843–853. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Kazmers, N.H.; Fragomen, A.T.; Rozbruch, S.R. Prevention of pin site infection in external fixation: A review
of the literature. Strat. Trauma Limb. Reconstr. 2016, 11, 75–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Maduschka, L. Beanspruchung von Schraubenverbindungen und Zweckmäßige Gestaltung der
Gewindeträger. Forschung Auf Dem Gebiet Des Ingenieurwesens A 1936, 7, 299–305. [CrossRef]
4. Sopwith, D.G. The distribution of load in screw threads. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 1948, 159, 373–383. [CrossRef]
5. Goodier, J.N. The distribution of load on the threads of screws. Trans. ASME 1940, 62, A10–A16.
6. Wang, W.; Marshek, K.M. Determination of the load distribution in a threaded connector having dissimilar
materials and varying thread stiffness. J. Eng. Ind.-Trans. ASME 1995, 117, 1–8. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, S.; Gao, L.; An, Q. Calculation method of load distribution on pipe threaded connections under tension
load. Front. Mech. Eng. 2011, 6, 241–248.
8. Yamamoto, A. The Theory and Computation of Thread Connection; Youkendo: Tokyo, Japan, 1980; pp. 39–54.
(In Japanese)
9. Heywood, R.B. Tensile fillet stresses in loaded projections. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 1948, 159, 384–391.
[CrossRef]
10. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (The Association of German Engineers). Standard VDI 2230: Systematic
Calculation of High Duty Bolted Joints; VDI: Berlin, Germnay, 2003.
11. Grosse, I.R.; Mitchell, L.D. Non-linear axial stiffness characteristic of axisymmetric bolted joint. J. Mech. Des.
1990, 112, 442–449. [CrossRef]
12. Wileman, J.; Choudhury, M.; Green, I. Computation of member stiffness in bolted connections. J. Mech.
Des.-Trans. ASME 1991, 113, 432–437. [CrossRef]
13. Chaaban, A.; Jutras, M. Static analysis of buttress threads using the finite element method. J. Press.
Vessel. Technol. 1992, 114, 209–212. [CrossRef]
14. Lehnhoff, T.F.; Wistehuff, W.E. Non-linear effects on the stress and deformations of bolted joints. J. Mech. Des.
1996, 118, 54–58.
15. Chen, J.-J.; Shih, Y.-S. A study of the helical effect on the thread connection by three dimensional finite
element analysis. Nucl. Eng. Des. 1999, 191, 109–116. [CrossRef]
16. Citipitioglu, A.M.; Haj-Ali, R.M.; White, D.W. Refined 3D finite element modelling of partially restrained
connections including slip. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2002, 58, 995–1013. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2018, 10, 335 13 of 13

17. Ju, S.-H.; Fan, C.-Y.; Wu, G.H. Three dimensional finite elements of steel bolted connections. Eng. Struct.
2004, 26, 403–413. [CrossRef]
18. Kim, J.; Yoon, J.-C.; Kang, B.-S. Finite element analysis and modelling of structure with bolted joints.
Appl. Math. Model. 2007, 31, 895–911. [CrossRef]
19. Battula, S. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the pull-out strength of self-tapping bone screw in
normal and osteoporotic bone. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA, 2007.
20. Hou, S.-M.; Hsu, C.-C.; Wang, J.L.; Chao, C.-K.; Lin, J. Mechanical tests and finite element models for bone
holding power of tibial locking screws. Clin. Biomech. 2004, 19, 738–745. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Inzana, J.A.; Varga, P.; Windolf, M. Implicit modelling of screw threads for efficient finite element analysis of
complex bone-implant systems. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 1836–1844. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Ferguson, S.J.; Wyss, U.P.; Pichora, D.R. Finite element stress analysis of a hybrid fracture fixation plate.
Med. Eng. Phys. 1996, 18, 241–250. [CrossRef]
23. Shah, S.; Kim, S.Y.R.; Dubov, A.; Schemitsch, E.H.; Bougherara, H.; Zdero, R. The biomechanics of plate
fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures near the tip of a total hip implant: Cables, screw, or both?
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2011, 225, 845–856. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Chen, G.; Schmutz, B.; Wullschleger, M.; Pearcy, M.J.; Schuetz, M.A. Computational investigation of
mechanical failures of internal plate fixation. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2010, 224, 119–126. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25. ANSYS Inc. Ansys v17 User’s Manual; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2017.
26. Barbosa, P.; Arantes, S.; Domingues, S.; Rezende, R.; Zanetta-Barbosa, D.; Soares, C.J. Measurement of Elastic
Modulus and Vickers Hardness of Surround Bone Implant Using Dynamic Microindentation—Parameters
Definition. Braz. Dent. J. 2014, 25, 385–390.
27. Gondret, F.; Larzul, C.; Combes, S.; Rochambeau, H. Carcass composition, bone mechanical properties,
and meat quality traits in relation to growth rate in rabbits. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 1526–1535. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28. Perrella, M.; Franciosa, P.; Gerbino, S. FEM and BEM Stress Analysis of Mandibular Bone Surrounding a
Dental Implant. Open Mech. Eng. J. 2015, 9, 282–292. [CrossRef]
29. Wancket, L.M. Animal Models for Evaluation of Bone Implants and Devices. Vet. Pathol. 2015, 52, 842–850.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Histing, T.; Garcia, P.; Holstein, J.H.; Klein, M.; Matthys, R.; Nuetzi, R.; Steck, R.; Laschke, M.W.; Wehner, T.;
Bindl, R.; et al. Small animal bone healing models: Standards, tips, and pitfalls results of a consensus meeting.
Bone 2011, 49, 591–599. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Moazen, M.; Mak, J.H.; Jones, A.C.; Jin, Z.; Wilcox, R.K.; Tsiridis, E. Evaluation of a new approach for
modelling the screw-bone interface in a locking plate fixation: A corroboration study. Proc. Int. Mech. Eng. H
2013, 227, 746–756. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Hayes, W.C.; Perren, S.M. Plate-bone friction in the compression fixation of fractures. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.
1972, 89, 236–240. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).