## 3 Results  
In this study, a three tetrahedral finite element model was created corresponded to the number of subjects. Every subject provided with two prosthetic socket model corresponded to UCLA and MCCT socket. Table 2 shows the list of number of element and nodes for each of the subject and their socket. Table 3 showed the list of subjects' profiles involved in the study. The study focused on the transformation of the geometrical model based on the donning simulation. The result was collected from three parts of the model before and after donning was completed. Figure 5a shows an initial \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Model**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Number of Elements**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Number of Nodes**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Residuum} & Subject A & 17,693 & 13,250 \\  & Subject B & 19,576 & 14,020 \\  & Subject C & 19,725 & 5017 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{MCCT Socket} & Subject A & 1703 & 880 \\  & Subject B & 299 & 181 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Subject C & 328 & 190 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{UCLA Socket} & Subject A & 2161 & 1158 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Subject B & 337 & 199 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Subject C & 234 & 246 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: List of elements and nodes unit. environment for the donning simulation, while Figure 5b shows the simulation result after the donning process is completed. The complete residuum model was then sectioned in 30 cross-sections along the z axis, binary images were generated, as shown in Figure 5c, which shows the fat part of subject A as an example. All the part volumes were determined layer-by-layer for each subject, as shown in Figure 6. The results consist of the image processing measurement (IP) and finite element simulation (FEA) outcomes for the three subjects with errors between both measurements. The volume measured before donning is denoted by the NO symbol. The corresponding volumes after the residuum was donned in both the MCCT and UCLA sockets are denoted with the symbols MCCT and UCLA, respectively. Increased correlation coefficient values (R\({}^{2}\)) were obtained in most of the models and the errors (Err) which occurred for the total volumes are acceptable, as shown in Table 4. Increased correlation values (>0.9) indicate the similarities of the FEA model to the actual residuum. This is attributed to the fact that the IP model yielded the most accurate volume measurements. All the FEA models yielded average errors which were less than 9% for each layer. Figure 5: (**a**) Initial condition of donning simulation. (**b**) Results of complete donning simulation for subject A. (**c**) Sample of binary image created from subject A to complete the donning process. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurement**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Subject**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **A** & **B** & **C** \\ \hline Weight (kg) & 63 & 80 & 61 \\ Height (cm) & 169 & 162 & 167 \\ Age (YO) & 35 & 56 & 47 \\ Gender (M/F) & M & M & M \\ Amputated Leg & Left & Right & Right \\ History Socket Usage & 7 & 40 & 5 \\ (Years) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Subject profiles. Figure 6: Volumes of all parts in every layer for each subject. IP denotes the measurement of volume from image processing method, finite element analysis (FEA) denotes the measurement of volume from a simulation and Error denotes the percentage of differences between image processing (IP) and FEA measurement. (**a**) Volumes for subject A without socket and with (**b**) MCCT and (**c**) UCLA sockets. (**d**) Volumes for subject B without socket and with (**e**) MCCT and (**f**) UCLA sockets. (**g**) Volumes for subject C without socket and with (**h**) MCCT and (**i**) UCLA sockets. Figure 7 shows the anterior cross-sectional views of the FEA residuum models of the three studied subjects before and after the penetration of the residuum models inside the sockets. It is clearly shown that the residuum has changed into the socket shape after its complete penetration.