Finite element estimates of interface stress in the trans-tibial prosthesis using gap elements are different from those using automated contact

When compared with automated contact methods of finite element (FE) analyses, gap elements have certain inherent disadvantages in simulating large slip of compliant materials on stiff surfaces. However, automated contact has found limited use in the biomechanical literature. A non-linear, three-dimensional, geometrically accurate, FE analysis of the trans-tibial limb–socket prosthetic system was used to compare an automated contact interface model with a gap element model, and to evaluate the sensitivity of automated contact to interfacial coefficient of friction (COF). Peak normal stresses and resultant shear stresses were higher in the gap element model than in the automated contact model, while the maximum axial slip was less. Under proximally directed load, compared with automated contact, gap elements predicted larger areas of stress concentration that were located more distally. Gap elements did not predict any relative slip at the distal end, and also transmitted a larger proportion of axial load as shear stress. Both models demonstrated non -linear sensitivity to COF, with larger variation at lower magnitudes of COF. By imposing physical connections between interface surfaces, gap elements distort the interface stress distributions under large slip. Automated contact methods offer an attractive alternative in applications such as prosthetic FE modeling, where the initial position of the limb in the socket is not known, where local geometric features have high design significance, and where large slip occurs under load.