| Literature DB >> 28462361 |
C Daish1,2, R Blanchard2,3, K Gulati4,5, D Losic4, D Findlay6, D J E Harvie7, P Pivonka2,3.
Abstract
In this paper, a comprehensive framework is proposed to estimate the anisotropic permeability matrix in trabecular bone specimens based on micro-computed tomography (microCT) imaging combined with pore-scale fluid dynamics simulations. Two essential steps in the proposed methodology are the selection of (i) a representative volume element (RVE) for calculation of trabecular bone permeability and (ii) a converged mesh for accurate calculation of pore fluid flow properties. Accurate estimates of trabecular bone porosities are obtained using a microCT image resolution of approximately 10 μm. We show that a trabecular bone RVE in the order of 2 × 2 × 2 mm3 is most suitable. Mesh convergence studies show that accurate fluid flow properties are obtained for a mesh size above 125,000 elements. Volume averaging of the pore-scale fluid flow properties allows calculation of the apparent permeability matrix of trabecular bone specimens. For the four specimens chosen, our numerical results show that the so obtained permeability coefficients are in excellent agreement with previously reported experimental data for both human and bovine trabecular bone samples. We also identified that bone samples taken from long bones generally exhibit a larger permeability in the longitudinal direction. The fact that all coefficients of the permeability matrix were different from zero indicates that bone samples are generally not harvested in the principal flow directions. The full permeability matrix was diagonalized by calculating the eigenvalues, while the eigenvectors showed how strongly the bone sample's orientations deviated from the principal flow directions. Porosity values of the four bone specimens range from 0.83 to 0.86, with a low standard deviation of ± 0.016, principal permeability values range from 0.22 to 1.45 ⋅ 10 -8 m2, with a high standard deviation of ± 0.33. Also, the anisotropic ratio ranged from 0.27 to 0.83, with high standard deviation. These results indicate that while the four specimens are quite similar in terms of average porosity, large variability exists with respect to permeability and specimen anisotropy. The utilized computational approach compares well with semi-analytical models based on homogenization theory. This methodology can be applied in bone tissue engineering applications for generating accurate pore morphologies of bone replacement materials and to consistently select similar bone specimens in bone bioreactor studies.Entities:
Keywords: Anisotropic permeability; Darcy's law; Fluid dynamics; MicroCT; Trabecular bone
Year: 2016 PMID: 28462361 PMCID: PMC5408131 DOI: 10.1016/j.bonr.2016.12.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Rep ISSN: 2352-1872
Fig. 1MicroCT image of cylindrical specimen n = 3 showing the porous trabecular bone morphology. Coring direction and orientation detailed in Davies et al. (2006).
Fig. 2Representation of grey values (GV) frequency plots for all four bovine specimens (n = 1...…4). Bone and water thresholds are chosen from these frequency values. Threshold for t and t are represented by the lower and upper lines respectively.
Fig. 3Bone segment selection process for each bovine specimen based on microCT imaging to develop a consistent representation of permeability: cubic segments (5 × 5 × 5 mm3) selected from each specimen using microCT are subsequently sub sampled to identify suitable RVE sizes.
Fig. 4Plot of the porosity against the edge length ranging from 10 μm to 5000 μm for specimen n = 3, used for assessment of the best RVE size for the numerical simulations.
Summary of microCT data for specimens of RVE size 2 × 2 × 2 mm3: porosity (Φ) and bone specific surface (S); Anistropic permeability values k, principal permeability values k, isotropic permeability k based on Kozeny–Carman equation (Eq. (13)), and anisotropy measure R for each of the four specimen.
| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.86 | − | |
| 3.98 | 3.52 | 3.43 | 3.31 | m −1 | |
| 0.67 | 0.39 | 1.19 | 1.05 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.66 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 1.04 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.98 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| −0.08 | 0.24 | −0.41 | −0.04 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.04 | −0.14 | −0.10 | −0.11 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.02 | 0.09 | −0.02 | 0.03 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.74 | 0.97 | 1.45 | 1.15 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 1.02 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.54 | 0.22 | 0.49 | 0.90 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.53 | 0.59 | ⋅ 10 −8 m2 | |
| 0.7909 | 0.2750 | 0.5127 | 0.8310 | − |
Fig. 5Pore-scale fluid flow simulation using arb software: convergence study performed on 2 × 2 × 2 mm3 segment with outputs representing (a) velocity and (b) permeability.
Fig. 6Pore-scale fluid flow simulation using arb software: velocity streamline profile across the unit cell (2 × 2 × 2 mm3).
Fig. 7Mean values and standard deviations considering four specimens: mean porosity () = 0.84; SD =± 0.16, mean anisotropic ratio () = 0.60; SD =± 0.26, and mean permeability [⋅ 10 −8 m2] = 0.78; SD =± 0.33.
Fig. 8Permeability findings comparison with model predictions (Abdalrahman et al., 2015) over the spread of all four specimens against model predictions.