0
Research Papers

The Effect of Strain Rate on the Mechanical Properties of Human Cortical Bone

[+] Author and Article Information
Ulrich Hansen1

Biomechanics Section, Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UKu.hansen@imperial.ac.uk

Peter Zioupos

Biomechanics Laboratories, Cranfield University, Shrivenham SN6 8LA, UK

Rebecca Simpson

Biomechanics Section, Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK

John D. Currey

Department of Biology, University of York, York YO10 5YW, UK

David Hynd

 Vehicle Safety and Engineering, TRL Limited, Wokingham, RG40 3GA, UK

http://www.dft.gov.uk

1

Corresponding author.

J Biomech Eng 130(1), 011011 (Feb 11, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2838032 History: Received August 19, 2006; Revised May 21, 2007; Published February 11, 2008

Bone mechanical properties are typically evaluated at relatively low strain rates. However, the strain rate related to traumatic failure is likely to be orders of magnitude higher and this higher strain rate is likely to affect the mechanical properties. Previous work reporting on the effect of strain rate on the mechanical properties of bone predominantly used nonhuman bone. In the work reported here, the effect of strain rate on the tensile and compressive properties of human bone was investigated. Human femoral cortical bone was tested longitudinally at strain rates ranging between 0.1429.1s1 in compression and 0.08–17 s1 in tension. Young’s modulus generally increased, across this strain rate range, for both tension and compression. Strength and strain (at maximum load) increased slightly in compression and decreased (for strain rates beyond 1 s1) in tension. Stress and strain at yield decreased (for strain rates beyond 1 s1) for both tension and compression. In general, there seemed to be a relatively simple linear relationship between yield properties and strain rate, but the relationships between postyield properties and strain rate were more complicated and indicated that strain rate has a stronger effect on postyield deformation than on initiation of yielding. The behavior seen in compression is broadly in agreement with past literature, while the behavior observed in tension may be explained by a ductile to brittle transition of bone at moderate to high strain rates.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Typical traces for load/extension curves in tension showing the effect of strain rate. (b) Enlarged section of the load/displacement traces for loads below 0.2kN. The calculation of Young’s moduli was confined to this low region.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) The effect of strain rate on tensile stress properties. Linear or negative exponential regression lines and their adjusted R2 value are included. (b) The effect of strain rate on tensile strain properties. Linear or negative exponential regression fits and their adjusted R2 value are shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) The effect of strain rate on the compressive ultimate stress properties. Linear or quadratic regression lines and their adjusted R2 value are included. (b) The effect of strain rate on the compressive strain properties. Linear or quadratic regression lines and their adjusted R2 value are shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

The effect of strain rate on the compressive and tensile elastic modulus. Linear regression lines and their adjusted R2 value are shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Variation of tensile Young’s modulus at various strain rates, comparison with literature. —: this study, +: Currey (5); ◼: Evans (6); ◆: Wright and Hayes (11); ▴: Crowninshield and Pope (10); ×: Pithioux (7). (b) Variation of compressive modulus at various strain rates, comparison with literature. Filled symbols: human bone, hollow symbols: bovine bone. —: this study; ◻: McElhaney (14); ◇: Reilly (15); ○: McElhaney and Byars (13); ▵: Reilly and Burstein (16); ◼: McElhaney (14); ◆: Reilly (15); ▴: Reilly and Burstein (16); ●: Evans and Vincentelli (17).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a) Variation of UTS at various strain rates, comparison with existing literature. —: this study, +: Currey (5); ●: Evans (6); *: Saha and Hayes (8); ◆: Wright and Hayes (11); ▴: Crowninshield and Pope (10); ×: Pithioux (7). (b) Variation of UCS at various strain rates, comparison with literature. Filled symbols: human bone, hollow symbols: bovine bone. —: this study (Quad model); ------: this study (log model); ◻: McElhaney (14); ◇: Reilly (15); ○: McElhaney and Byars (13); ▵: Reilly and Bunstein (16); ◼: McElhaney (14); ◆: Reilly (15); ▴: Reilly and Burstein (16); ●: Evans and Vincentelli (17).

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