0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Bone/Orthopedic

Strain-rate Dependent Stiffness of Articular Cartilage in Unconfined Compression

[+] Author and Article Information
L. P. Li

Biosyntech Inc., 475 Armand-Frappier Blvd., Park of Science and High Technology, Laval, Quebec, Canada H7V 4B3

M. D. Buschmann

Department of Chemical Engineering and Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, Canada H3C 3A7

A. Shirazi-Adl

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, Canada H3C 3A7

J Biomech Eng 125(2), 161-168 (Apr 09, 2003) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1560142 History: Received March 01, 2001; Revised November 01, 2002; Online April 09, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Borrelli,  J., Torzilli,  P. A., Grigiene,  R., and Helfet,  D. L., 1997, “Effect of Impact Load on Articular Cartilage: Development of an Intra-articular Fracture Model,” J. Orthop. Trauma, 11, pp. 319–326.
Broom,  N. D., 1986, “Structural Consequences of Traumatizing Articular Cartilage,” Ann. Rheum. Dis., 45, pp. 225–234.
Jeffrey,  J. E., Gregory,  D. W., and Aspden,  R. M., 1995, “Matrix Damage and Chondrocyte Viability Following a Single Impact Load on Articular Cartilage,” Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 322, pp. 87–96.
Kerin,  A. J., Wisnom,  M. R., and Adams,  M. A., 1998, “The Compressive Strength of Articular Cartilage,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H-Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 212, pp. 273–280.
Quinn,  T. M., Grodzinsky,  A. J., Hunziker,  E. B., and Sandy,  J. D., 1998, “Effects of Injurious Compression on Matrix Turnover Around Individual Cells in Calf Articular Cartilage Explants,” J. Orthop. Res., 16, pp. 490–499.
Repo,  R. U., and Finlay,  J. B., 1977, “Survival of Articular Cartilage After Controlled Impact,” J. Bone Jt. Surg., Am. Vol., 59, pp. 1068–1076.
Simon,  S. R., Radin,  E. L., Paul,  I. L., and Rose,  R. M., 1972, “The Response of Joints to Impact Loading-II In Vivo Behavior of Subchondral Bone,” J. Biomech., 5, pp. 267–272.
Torzilli,  P. A., Grigiene,  R., Borrelli,  J., and Helfet,  D. L., 1999, “Effect of Impact Load on Articular Cartilage: Cell Metabolism and Viability, and Matrix Water Content,” J. Biomech. Eng., 121, pp. 433–441.
Chen,  C.-T., Burton-Wurster,  N., Lust,  G., Bank,  R. A., and Tekoppele,  J. M., 1999, “Compositional and Metabolic Changes in Damaged Cartilage are Peak-stress, Stress-rate, and Loading-duration Dependent,” J. Orthop. Res., 17, pp. 870–879.
Ewers,  B. J., Dvoracek-Driksna,  D., Orth,  M. W., and Haut,  R. C., 2001, “The Extent of Matrix Damage and Chondrocyte Death in Mechanically Traumatized Articular Cartilage Explants Depends on Rate of Loading,” J. Orthop. Res., 19, pp. 779–784.
Kurz,  B., Jin,  M., Patwari,  P., Lark,  M. W., and Grodzinsky,  A. J., 2000, “Biosynthetic Response and Mechanical Properties of Articular Cartilage After Injurious Compression: The Importance of Strain Rate,” ORS Transactions, 25, p. 180.
Quinn,  T., Allen,  R., Schalet,  B., Perumbuli,  P., and Hunziker,  E., 2000, “Matrix Damage and Cell Injury Caused by Ramp Compression of Adult Bovine Articular Cartilage Explants: Effects of Strain Rate and Peak Stress,” ORS Transactions, 25, p. 106.
Armstrong,  C. G., Lai,  W. M., and Mow,  V. C., 1984, “An Analysis of the Unconfined Compression of Articular Cartilage,” J. Biomech. Eng., 106, pp. 165–173.
Li,  L. P., Soulhat,  J., Buschmann,  M. D., and Shirazi-Adl,  A., 1999, “Nonlinear Analysis of Cartilage in Unconfined Ramp Compression Using a Fibril Reinforced Poroelastic Model,” Clinical Biomechanics, 14, pp. 673–682.
Li,  L. P., Buschmann,  M. D., and Shirazi-Adl,  A., 2000, “A Fibril Reinforced Nonhomogeneous Poroelastic Model for Articular Cartilage: Inhomogeneous Response in Unconfined Compression,” J. Biomech., 33, pp. 1533–1541.
Li,  L. P., Shirazi-Adl,  A., and Buschmann,  M. D., 2002, “Alterations in Mechanical Behavior Of Articular Cartilage Due to Changes in Depth Varying Material Properties–A Nonhomogeneous Poroelastic Model Study,” Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 5, pp. 45–52.
Langelier,  E., and Buschmann,  M. D., 1999, “Amplitude Dependent Mechanical Alteration and Nonlinearity of Articular Cartilage Material Behavior in Unconfined Compression,” ORS Transactions, 24, p. 647.
Li,  L. P., Buschmann,  M. D., and Shirazi-Adl,  A., 2001, “Fibril Stiffening Accounts for Strain-dependent Stiffness of Articular Cartilage in Unconfined Compression,” ORS Transactions, 26, p. 425.
Oegema,  T. R., Carpenter,  R. J., Hofmeister,  F., and Thompson,  R. C., 1997, “The Interaction of the Zone of Calcified Cartilage and Subchondral Bone in Osteoarthritic,” Microsc. Res. Tech., 37, pp. 324–332.
Mente,  P. L., and Lewis,  J. L., 1994, “Elastic Modulus of Calcified Cartilage is an Order of Magnitude Less than that of Subchondral Bone,” J. Orthop. Res., 12, pp. 637–647.
Li,  B., and Aspden,  R. M., 1997, “Mechanical and Material Properties of the Subchondral Bone Plate from the Femoral Head of Patients with Osteoarthritis or Osteoporosis,” Ann. Rheum. Dis., 56, pp. 247–254.
Cederbaum, G., Li, L. P., and Schulgasser, K., 2000, Poroelastic Structures, Elsevier Science Ltd., New York.
McCormack,  T., and Mansour,  J. M., 1998, “Reduction in Tensile Strength of Cartilage Precedes Surface Damage Under Repeated Compression Loading In Vitro,” J. Biomech., 31, pp. 55–61.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Axial compressive stiffness of cartilage disks with bone attached, the nonhomogeneous model versus experiments (mean±SD, n=4). The material parameters of cartilage used for simulation are as follows: at the articular surface, Em=0.20 MPa,νm=0.12, the void ratio is 3.6; at the cartilage and bone interface Em=0.80 MPa,νm=0.42, the void ratio is 2.88; k⁁=0.004 mm4/Ns and M=13;Efε=2800 MPa and Ef0=3 MPa at the surface. For the underlying bone, E=18 MPa,ν=0.25,k≡0.0004 mm4/Ns, the void ratio is 0.5.
Grahic Jump Location
Axial compressive stiffness of cartilage when no fluid flow is feasible. For all cases, Ef0=3 MPa. (a) Elastic static stiffness or equilibrium stiffness: νm=0.38 and Efε=1600 MPa except when specified in the legend otherwise. (b) Instantaneous stiffness for Efε=1600, 1200 and 800 for which the fluid is trapped: νm=0.38 and Em is as specified in the legend.
Grahic Jump Location
Transient compressive stiffness of cartilage at various strain rates as specified in the legends (nominal compressive axial strain per second). For all cases, Ef0=3 MPa;νm=0.38 and Em takes either 0.36 or 2.14 MPa. (a) Stiffness for Efε=1600. (b) Deviations of the stiffness when Efε is reduced from 1600 (same as shown in figure a) to 1200 (shown with symbols). Larger deviations are observed for the cases of higher strain rates. For clarity of the figure, the curves for the strain rate 5%/s are omitted.
Grahic Jump Location
Radial strain at the center of cartilage disk for Efε=1600 vs Efε=1200 while Ef0=3 MPa. For the case of Efε=1200, the strain is shown with unconnected symbols. (a) The radial strain at equilibrium, for which Em and νm are as specified in the legend. (b) The radial strain during the transient for different strain rates, for which Em=1.07 MPa and νm=0.38. The curves for Em=0.78 and νm=0.42 and for Em=1.48 and νm=0.30 would be hard to distinguish from the corresponding curves (while other parameters are the same), were they drawn (very little difference at the low speed, almost no difference at the high speeds).
Grahic Jump Location
Transient compressive stiffness of cartilage when the permeability is taken to be constant (k≡0.003 mm4/Ns,M=0),νm=0.38,Efε=1600 MPa and Ef0=3 MPa. If Efε is reduced to 1200 MPa, the deviations will be invisible (with same 2 digits for the stiffness) at the compression rate 0.05%/s and almost invisible after 10% axial strain at the rate 0.5%/s. The deviations are relatively significant at the compression rate 5%/s.
Grahic Jump Location
Transient radial strain at the center of disk for Em=1.07 MPa,νm=0.38 and Ef0=3 MPa. The strain for M=10 (nonlinear permeability) is compared with that for M=0 (constant permeability) while Efε=1600. The strain is shown for M=0 and Efε=1200 with the fine dots.
Grahic Jump Location
Transient stiffness of cartilage with constant fibrillar modulus (Ef≡20 MPa) for M=10 vs M=0 while Em=0.36 and νm=0.38. No significant qualitative changes in the stiffness are observed for a larger Em and thus the results for the comparison group are not included.
Grahic Jump Location
Axial compressive stiffness of cartilage for constant Ef (≡20 MPa) and νm=0.38 when no fluid flow is feasible. The finite deformation and small deformation (SD) theories are employed respectively. In all cases, the stiffness extracted from the SD theory is not axial strain dependent (horizontal lines). (a) Elastic static stiffness for Em=0.36, 1.07 and 2.14 MPa respectively. (b) Instantaneous stiffness for which the fluid is trapped.
Grahic Jump Location
Significance of different measures in quantifying cartilage stiffness, for Em=0.36 MPa,νm=0.38,Efε=1600 and Ef0=3 MPa. The tangent modulus is defined as dσz/dεz and the secant modulus is defined as σzz, where σz is the Cauchy stress in the axial direction and εz is the logarithmic strain. The nominal modulus, generally adopted elsewhere in this paper, is the ratio of nominal axial stress over nominal axial strain. For the convenience of comparison, the moduli are shown as functions of the nominal axial strain. (a) Instantaneous moduli as obtained by employing the finite deformation (FD) and small deformation (SD) theories. (b) Transient moduli for the compression rate 0.5%/s (M=10, FD theory only).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In