4.5 Article

Pendulum mass affects the measurement of articular friction coefficient

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 615-618

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.09.034

Keywords

Friction; Mass; Cartilage; Pendulum; Lubrication

Funding

  1. NIH [P20-GM104937]
  2. RIH Orthopaedic Foundation, Inc.
  3. University Orthopedics, Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Friction measurements of articular cartilage are important to determine the relative tribologic contributions made by synovial fluid or cartilage, and to assess the efficacy of therapies for preventing the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Stanton's equation is the most frequently used formula for estimating the whole joint friction coefficient (mu) of an articular pendulum, and assumes pendulum energy loss through a mass-independent mechanism. This study examines if articular pendulum energy loss is indeed mass independent, and compares Stanton's model to an alternative model, which incorporates viscous damping, for calculating mu. Ten loads (25-100% body weight) were applied in a random order to an articular pendulum using the knees of adult male Hartley guinea pigs (n=4) as the fulcrum. Motion of the decaying pendulum was recorded and mu was estimated using two models: Stanton's equation, and an exponential decay function incorporating a viscous damping coefficient. mu estimates decreased as mass increased for both models. Exponential decay model fit error values were 82% less than the Stanton model. These results indicate that mu decreases with increasing mass, and that an exponential decay model provides a better fit for articular pendulum data at all mass values. In conclusion, inter-study comparisons of articular pendulum mu values should not be made without recognizing the loads used, as it values are mass dependent. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available