Cargando…

The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a commonly used application in biomechanical studies of both extant and fossil taxa to assess stress and strain in solid structures such as bone. FEA can be performed on 3D structures that are generated using various methods, including computed tomography (CT) scans...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rowe, Andre J., Rayfield, Emily J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042861
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13760
_version_ 1784777383101857792
author Rowe, Andre J.
Rayfield, Emily J.
author_facet Rowe, Andre J.
Rayfield, Emily J.
author_sort Rowe, Andre J.
collection PubMed
description Finite element analysis (FEA) is a commonly used application in biomechanical studies of both extant and fossil taxa to assess stress and strain in solid structures such as bone. FEA can be performed on 3D structures that are generated using various methods, including computed tomography (CT) scans and surface scans. While previous palaeobiological studies have used both CT scanned models and surface scanned models, little research has evaluated to what degree FE results may vary when CT scans and surface scans of the same object are compared. Surface scans do not preserve the internal geometries of 3D structures, which are typically preserved in CT scans. Here, we created 3D models from CT scans and surface scans of the same specimens (crania and mandibles of a Nile crocodile, a green sea turtle, and a monitor lizard) and performed FEA under identical loading parameters. It was found that once surface scanned models are solidified, they output stress and strain distributions and model deformations comparable to their CT scanned counterparts, though differing by notable stress and strain magnitudes in some cases, depending on morphology of the specimen and the degree of reconstruction applied. Despite similarities in overall mechanical behaviour, surface scanned models can differ in exterior shape compared to CT scanned models due to inaccuracies that can occur during scanning and reconstruction, resulting in local differences in stress distribution. Solid-fill surface scanned models generally output lower stresses compared to CT scanned models due to their compact interiors, which must be accounted for in studies that use both types of scans.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9420411
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94204112022-08-29 The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis Rowe, Andre J. Rayfield, Emily J. PeerJ Computational Biology Finite element analysis (FEA) is a commonly used application in biomechanical studies of both extant and fossil taxa to assess stress and strain in solid structures such as bone. FEA can be performed on 3D structures that are generated using various methods, including computed tomography (CT) scans and surface scans. While previous palaeobiological studies have used both CT scanned models and surface scanned models, little research has evaluated to what degree FE results may vary when CT scans and surface scans of the same object are compared. Surface scans do not preserve the internal geometries of 3D structures, which are typically preserved in CT scans. Here, we created 3D models from CT scans and surface scans of the same specimens (crania and mandibles of a Nile crocodile, a green sea turtle, and a monitor lizard) and performed FEA under identical loading parameters. It was found that once surface scanned models are solidified, they output stress and strain distributions and model deformations comparable to their CT scanned counterparts, though differing by notable stress and strain magnitudes in some cases, depending on morphology of the specimen and the degree of reconstruction applied. Despite similarities in overall mechanical behaviour, surface scanned models can differ in exterior shape compared to CT scanned models due to inaccuracies that can occur during scanning and reconstruction, resulting in local differences in stress distribution. Solid-fill surface scanned models generally output lower stresses compared to CT scanned models due to their compact interiors, which must be accounted for in studies that use both types of scans. PeerJ Inc. 2022-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9420411/ /pubmed/36042861 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13760 Text en ©2022 Rowe and Rayfield https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Computational Biology
Rowe, Andre J.
Rayfield, Emily J.
The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis
title The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis
title_full The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis
title_fullStr The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis
title_full_unstemmed The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis
title_short The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis
title_sort efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3d finite element analysis
topic Computational Biology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042861
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13760
work_keys_str_mv AT roweandrej theefficacyofcomputedtomographyscanningversussurfacescanningin3dfiniteelementanalysis
AT rayfieldemilyj theefficacyofcomputedtomographyscanningversussurfacescanningin3dfiniteelementanalysis
AT roweandrej efficacyofcomputedtomographyscanningversussurfacescanningin3dfiniteelementanalysis
AT rayfieldemilyj efficacyofcomputedtomographyscanningversussurfacescanningin3dfiniteelementanalysis