ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

Fig. 2 Cut view of FE-model.
Shown is the inhomogeneous
distribution of e-moduli.
Computational and experimental results were compared to
validate the FE-models, and to compare different densityelasticity
relationship for subject-specific finite element
models. The percentage error between numerical and
experimental result was calculated for each of the
measured parameters. Mean and confidence interval (1.96
SD) of the percentage errors were calculated for every
category of measurement and for each density-elasticity
relationship separately. Modified Bland-Altman plots
(percentage error vs. experimental result) were used to
assess the scatter of the percentage error (12, 13). The
corroboration between finite-element-analysis (FEA) and
experiment was determined by regression analysis
(percentage error vs. experimental result). Slope and
intercept of the regression line were tested against the null
hypothesis that the percentage error is zero (p=0.05) (14).
4. RESULTS
The predicted mechanical values depended largely on the used density-elasticity
relationship (Table 1).
Keyak & Falkinstein (2003)
Morgan et al. (2003)
Les et al. (1994)
(FEA-EXP) / EXP (%) different to zero
+1.96SD Mean -1.96SD slope intercept
Strain 28.2 -9.0 -46.1 p