0
Research Papers

The Importance of Intrinsic Damage Properties to Bone Fragility: A Finite Element Study

[+] Author and Article Information
M. R. Hardisty

Lawrence J. Ellison Musculoskeletal
Research Center,
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
University of California,
Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817;
Biomedical Engineering,
College of Engineering,
University of California,
Davis, Davis, CA 95616

R. Zauel

Bone and Joint Center,
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
Henry Ford Hospital,
Detroit, MI 48202

S. M. Stover

J. D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic
Research Laboratory,
School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of California,
Davis, Davis, CA 95616

D. P. Fyhrie

Lawrence J. Ellison Musculoskeletal
Research Center,
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
University of California,
Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817;
Biomedical Engineering,
College of Engineering,
University of California,
Davis, Davis, CA 95616
e-mail: dpfyhrie@ucdavis.edu

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Manuscript received January 18, 2012; final manuscript received October 5, 2012; accepted manuscript posted November 28, 2012; published online December 27, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Sean S. Kohles.

J Biomech Eng 135(1), 011004 (Dec 27, 2012) (9 pages) Paper No: BIO-12-1019; doi: 10.1115/1.4023090 History: Received January 18, 2012; Revised October 05, 2012; Accepted November 28, 2012

As the average age of the population has increased, the incidence of age-related bone fracture has also increased. While some of the increase of fracture incidence with age is related to loss of bone mass, a significant part of the risk is unexplained and may be caused by changes in intrinsic material properties of the hard tissue. This investigation focused on understanding how changes to the intrinsic damage properties affect bone fragility. We hypothesized that the intrinsic (μm) damage properties of bone tissue strongly and nonlinearly affect mechanical behavior at the apparent (whole tissue, cm) level. The importance of intrinsic properties on the apparent level behavior of trabecular bone tissue was investigated using voxel based finite element analysis. Trabecular bone cores from human T12 vertebrae were scanned using microcomputed tomography (μCT) and the images used to build nonlinear finite element models. Isotropic and initially homogenous material properties were used for all elements. The elastic modulus (Ei) of individual elements was reduced with a secant damage rule relating only principal tensile tissue strain to modulus damage. Apparent level resistance to fracture as a function of changes in the intrinsic damage properties was measured using the mechanical energy to failure per unit volume (apparent toughness modulus, Wa) and the apparent yield strength (σay, calculated using the 0.2% offset). Intrinsic damage properties had a profound nonlinear effect on the apparent tissue level mechanical response. Intrinsic level failure occurs prior to apparent yield strength (σay). Apparent yield strength (σay) and toughness vary strongly (1200% and 400%, respectively) with relatively small changes in the intrinsic damage behavior. The range of apparent maximum stresses predicted by the models was consistent with those measured experimentally for these trabecular bone cores from the experimental axial compressive loading (experimental: σmax = 3.0–4.3 MPa; modeling: σmax = 2–16 MPa). This finding differs significantly from previous studies based on nondamaging intrinsic material models. Further observations were that this intrinsic damage model reproduced important experimental apparent level behaviors including softening after peak load, microdamage accumulation before apparent yield (0.2% offset), unload softening, and sensitivity of the apparent level mechanical properties to variability of the intrinsic properties.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Barth, H. D., Launey, M. E., Macdowell, A. A., Ager, J. W., and Ritchie, R. O., 2010, “On the Effect of X-Ray Irradiation on the Deformation and Fracture Behavior of Human Cortical Bone,” Bone, 46(6), pp. 1475–1485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yan, J., Daga, A., Kumar, R., and Mecholsky, J. J., 2008, “Fracture Toughness and Work of Fracture of Hydrated, Dehydrated, and Ashed Bovine Bone,” J. Biomech., 41(9), pp. 1929–1936. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burstein, A., Zika, J., Heiple, K., and Klein, L., 1975, “Contribution of Collagen and Mineral to the Elastic-Plastic Properties of Bone,” J. Bone Jt. Surg., Am. Vol., 57(7), pp. 956–961.
Vashishth, D., Gibson, G. J., Khoury, J. I., Schaffler, M. B., Kimura, J., and Fyhrie, D. P., 2001, “Influence of Nonenzymatic Glycation on Biomechanical Properties of Cortical Bone,” Bone, 28(2), pp. 195–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, X., Li, X., Bank, R. A., and Agrawal, C. M., 2002, “Effects of Collagen Unwinding and Cleavage on the Mechanical Integrity of the Collagen Network in Bone,” Calcif. Tissue Int., 71(2), pp. 186–192. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wynnyckyj, C., Willett, T. L., Omelon, S., Wang, J., Wang, Z., and Grynpas, M. D., 2011, “Changes in Bone Fatigue Resistance Due to Collagen Degradation,” J. Orthop. Res., pp. 197–203.
Martin, R. B., 2002, “Is all Cortical Bone Remodeling Initiated by Microdamage?,” Bone, 30(1), pp. 8–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McNamara, L. M., and Prendergast, P. J., 2007, “Bone Remodelling Algorithms Incorporating Both Strain and Microdamage Stimuli,” J. Biomech., 40(6), pp. 1381–1391. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burr, D. B., Forwood, M. R., Fyhrie, D. P., Martin, R. B., Schaffler, M. B., and Turner, C. H., 1997, “Bone Microdamage and Skeletal Fragility in Osteoporotic and Stress Fractures,” J. Bone Miner. Res., 12(1), pp. 6–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Crawford, R. P., Cann, C. E., and Keaveny, T. M., 2003, “Finite Element Models Predict In Vitro Vertebral Body Compressive Strength Better Than Quantitative Computed Tomography,” Bone, 33(4), pp. 744–750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bosisio, M. R., Talmant, M., Skalli, W., Laugier, P., and Mitton, D., 2007, “Apparent Young's Modulus of Human Radius Using Inverse Finite-Element Method,” J. Biomech., 40(9), pp. 2022–2028. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chevalier, Y., Pahr, D., Allmer, H., Charlebois, M., and Zysset, P., 2007, “Validation of a Voxel-Based FE Method for Prediction of the Uniaxial Apparent Modulus of Human Trabecular Bone Using Macroscopic Mechanical Tests and Nanoindentation,” J. Biomech., 40(15), pp. 3333–3340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bayraktar, H. H., Gupta, A., Kwon, R. Y., Papadopoulos, P., and Keaveny, T. M., 2004, “The Modified Super-Ellipsoid Yield Criterion for Human Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech. Eng., 126(6), pp. 677–684. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stölken, J. S., and Kinney, J. H., 2003, “On the Importance of Geometric Nonlinearity in Finite-Element Simulations of Trabecular Bone Failure,” Bone, 33(4), pp. 494–504. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Van Rietbergen, B., Odgaard, A., Kabel, J., and Huiskes, R., 1998, “Relationships Between Bone Morphology and Bone Elastic Properties Can be Accurately Quantified Using High-Resolution Computer Reconstructions,” J. Orthop. Res., 16(1), pp. 23–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Odgaard, A., Kabel, J., van Rietbergen, B., Dalstra, M., and Huiskes, R., 1997, “Fabric and Elastic Principal Directions of Cancellous Bone are Closely Related,” J. Biomech., 30(5), pp. 487–495. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bayraktar, H. H., Morgan, E. F., Niebur, G. L., Morris, G. E., Wong, E. K., and Keaveny, T. M., 2004, “Comparison of the Elastic and Yield Properties of Human Femoral Trabecular and Cortical Bone Tissue,” J. Biomech., 37(1), pp. 27–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Verhulp, E., van Rietbergen, B., Muller, R., and Huiskes, R., 2008, “Indirect Determination of Trabecular Bone Effective Tissue Failure Properties Using Micro-Finite Element Simulations,” J. Biomech., 41(7), pp. 1479–1485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fantner, G. E., Hassenkam, T., Kindt, J. H., Weaver, J. C., Birkedal, H., Pechenik, L., Cutroni, J. A., Cidade, G. A., Stucky, G. D., Morse, D. E., and Hansma, P. K., 2005, “Sacrificial Bonds and Hidden Length Dissipate Energy as Mineralized Fibrils Separate During Bone Fracture,” Nature Mater., 4, pp. 612–616. [CrossRef]
Fantner, G. E., Adams, J., Turner, P., Thurner, P. J., Fisher, L. W., and Hansma, P. K., 2007, “Nanoscale Ion Mediated Networks in Bone: Osteopontin Can Repeatedly Dissipate Large Amounts of Energy,” Nano Lett., 7(8), pp. 2491–2498. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dong, X. N., Guda, T., Millwater, H. R., and Wang, X., 2009, “Probabilistic Failure Analysis of Bone Using a Finite Element Model of Mineral-Collagen Composites,” J. Biomech., 42(3), pp. 202–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nalla, R. K., Kinney, J. H., and Ritchie, R. O., 2003, “Mechanistic Fracture Criteria for the Failure of Human Cortical Bone,” Nature Mater., 2(3), pp. 164–168. [CrossRef]
Fratzl, P., 2008, “Bone Fracture: When the Cracks Begin to Show,” Nature Mater., 7(8), pp. 610–612. [CrossRef]
Vashishth, D., Koontz, J., Qiu, S. J., Lundin-Cannon, D., Yeni, Y. N., Schaffler, M. B., and Fyhrie, D. P., 2000, “In Vivo Diffuse Damage in Human Vertebral Trabecular Bone,” Bone, 26(2), pp. 147–152. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lemaître, J., and Desmorat, R., 2005, Engineering Damage Mechanics: Ductile, Creep, Fatigue and Brittle Failures, Springer, New York.
Ural, A., and Vashishth, D., 2006, “Cohesive Finite Element Modeling of Age-Related Toughness Loss in Human Cortical Bone,” Journal of Biomech., 39(16), pp. 2974–2982. [CrossRef]
Wenzel, T. E., Schaffler, M. B., and Fyhrie, D. P., 1996, “In Vivo Trabecular Microcracks in Human Vertebral Bone,” Bone, 19(2), pp. 89–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zauel, R., Yeni, Y. N., Bay, B. K., Dong, X. N., and Fyhrie, D. P., 2006, “Comparison of the Linear Finite Element Prediction of Deformation and Strain of Human Cancellous Bone to 3D Digital Volume Correlation Measurements,” J. Biomech. Eng., 128(1), pp. 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chavassieux, P., Seeman, E., and Delmas, P. D., 2007, “Insights into Material and Structural Basis of Bone Fragility From Diseases Associated With Fractures: How Determinants of the Biomechanical Properties of Bone are Compromised by Disease,” Endocr. Rev., 28(2), pp. 151–164. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Avery, N. C., and Bailey, A. J., 2008, “Restraining Cross-Links Responsible for the Mechanical Properties of Collagen Fibers: Natural and Artificial,” Collagen, P.Fratzl, ed., Springer, New York, pp. 81–110.
Gautieri, A., Uzel, S., Vesentini, S., Redaelli, A., and Buehler, M. J., 2009, “Molecular and Mesoscale Mechanisms of Osteogenesis Imperfecta Disease in Collagen Fibrils,” Biophys. J., 97(3), pp. 857–865. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hernandez, C. J., Tang, S. Y., Baumbach, B. M., Hwu, P. B., Sakkee, A. N., van der Ham, F., DeGroot, J., Bank, R. A., and Keaveny, T. M., 2005, “Trabecular Microfracture and the Influence of Pyridinium and Non-Enzymatic Glycation-Mediated Collagen Cross-Links,” Bone, 37(6), pp. 825–832. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shen, Z. L., Dodge, M. R., Kahn, H., Ballarini, R., and Eppell, S. J., 2008, “Stress-Strain Experiments on Individual Collagen Fibrils,” Biophys. J., 95(8), pp. 3956–3963. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Busse, B., Hahn, M., Soltau, M., Zustin, J., Püschel, K., Duda, G. N., and Amling, M., 2009, “Increased Calcium Content and Inhomogeneity of Mineralization Render Bone Toughness in Osteoporosis: Mineralization, Morphology and Biomechanics of Human Single Trabeculae,” Bone, 45(6), pp. 1034–1043. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kopperdahl, D. L., and Keaveny, T. M., 1998, “Yield Strain Behavior of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 31(7), pp. 601–608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
E28 Committee, 2009, “Test Methods for Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at Room Temperature,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Keaveny, T. M., Morgan, E. F., Niebur, G. L., and Yeh, O. C., 2001, “Biomechanics of Trabecular Bone,” Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng., 3, pp. 307–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Niebur, G. L., Feldstein, M. J., Yuen, J. C., Chen, T. J., and Keaveny, T. M., 2000, “High-Resolution Finite Element Models With Tissue Strength Asymmetry Accurately Predict Failure of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 33(12), pp. 1575–1583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fyhrie, D. P., and Vashishth, D., 2000, “Bone Stiffness Predicts Strength Similarly for Human Vertebral Cancellous Bone in Compression and for Cortical Bone in Tension.,” Bone, 26(2), pp. 169–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Currey, J. D., Brear, K., Zioupos, P., and Reilly, G. C., 1995, “Effect of Formaldehyde Fixation on Some Mechanical Properties of Bovine Bone,” Biomaterials, 16(16), pp. 1267–1271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Morgan, E. F., Bayraktar, H. H., and Keaveny, T. M., 2003, “Trabecular Bone Modulus-Density Relationships Depend on Anatomic Site,” J. Biomech., 36(7), pp. 897–904. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Verhulp, E., Van Rietbergen, B., Müller, R., and Huiskes, R., 2008, “Micro-Finite Element Simulation of Trabecular-Bone Post-Yield Behaviour—Effects of Material Model, Element Size and Type,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 11(4), pp. 389–395. [CrossRef]
Bigley, R. F., Gibeling, J. C., Stover, S. M., Hazelwood, S. J., Fyhrie, D. P., and Martin, R. B., 2008, “Volume Effects on Yield Strength of Equine Cortical Bone,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 1(4), pp. 295–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhang, J., Michalenko, M. M., Kuhl, E., and Ovaert, T. C., 2010, “Characterization of Indentation Response and Stiffness Reduction of Bone Using a Continuum Damage Model,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 3(2), pp. 189–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kosmopoulos, V., and Keller, T. S., 2008, “Predicting Trabecular Bone Microdamage Initiation and Accumulation Using a Non-Linear Perfect Damage Model,” Med. Eng. Phys., 30(6), pp. 725–732. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Moore, T. L. A., and Gibson, L. J., 2002, “Microdamage Accumulation in Bovine Trabecular Bone in Uniaxial Compression,” J. Biomech. Eng., 124(1), pp. 63–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nagaraja, S., Couse, T. L., and Guldberg, R. E., 2005, “Trabecular Bone Microdamage and Microstructural Stresses Under Uniaxial Compression,” J. Biomech., 38(4), pp. 707–716. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wang, C. C., Deng, J. M., Ateshian, G. A., and Hung, C. T., 2002, “An Automated Approach for Direct Measurement of Two-Dimensional Strain Distributions Within Articular Cartilage Under Unconfined Compression,” J. Biomech. Eng., 124(5), pp. 557–567. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tomar, V., 2009, “Insights Into the Effects of Tensile and Compressive Loadings on Microstructure Dependent Fracture of Trabecular Bone,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 76(7), pp. 884–897. [CrossRef]
Ager, J. W., III, Balooch, G., and Ritchie, R. O., 2006, “Fracture, Aging, and Disease in Bone,” J. Mater. Res, 21(8), pp. 1878–1892. [CrossRef]
Tang, S. Y., Zeenath, U., and Vashishth, D., 2007, “Effects of Non-Enzymatic Glycation on Cancellous Bone Fragility,” Bone, 40(4), pp. 1144–1151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bradke, B. S., Tang, S., and Vashid, D., 2009, “An Agent Cleaving Sugar-Derived Collagen Cross-Links Decreases Bone Fragility,” Orthopaedic Research Society Meeting. Las Vegas, 2009, Orthop. Res. Soc., Poster 695.
Paschalis, E. P., Shane, E., Lyritis, G., Skarantavos, G., Mendelsohn, R., and Boskey, A. L., 2004, “Bone Fragility and Collagen Cross-Links,” J. Bone Miner. Res., 19(12), pp. 2000–2004. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Van Rietbergen, B., Muller, R., Ulrich, D., Ruegsegger, P., and Huiskes, R., 1999, “Tissue Stresses and Strain in Trabeculae of a Canine Proximal Femur can be Quantified From Computer Reconstructions,” J. Biomech., 32(4), pp. 443–451. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Karim, L., and Vashishth, D., 2011, “Role of Trabecular Microarchitecture in the Formation, Accumulation, and Morphology of Microdamage in Human Cancellous Bone,” J. Orthop. Res., 29(11), pp. 1739–1744. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wright, T. M., and Vosburgh, F., 1981, “Permanent Deformation of Compact Bone Monitored by Acoustic Emission,” J. Biomech., 14(6), pp. 405–409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Boyce, T. M., Fyhrie, D. P., Glotkowski, M. C., Radin, E. L., and Schaffler, M. B., 1998, “Damage Type and Strain Mode Associations in Human Compact Bone Bending Fatigue,” J. Orthop. Res., 16(3), pp. 322–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burger, E. H., and Klein-Nulend, J., 1999, “Mechanotransduction in Bone—Role of the Lacuno-Canalicular Network,” FASEB J., 13(Suppl.), pp. 101–112.
Hardisty, M. R., Akens, M. K., Yee, A. J., and Whyne, C. M., 2010, “Image Registration Demonstrates a Variable Effect of the Growth Plate on Vertebral Strain,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 38(9), pp. 2948–2955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nazarian, A., and Muller, R., 2004, “Time-Lapsed Microstructural Imaging of Bone Failure Behavior,” J. Biomech., 37(1), pp. 55–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Easley, S. K., Jekir, M. G., Burghardt, A. J., Li, M., and Keaveny, T. M., 2010, “Contribution of the Intra-Specimen Variations in Tissue Mineralization to PTH- and Raloxifene-Induced Changes in Stiffness of Rat Vertebrae,” Bone, 46(4), pp. 1162–1169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

FEM Method: Trabecular bone cores were obtained from male human cadaveric T12 vertebrae. Bone voxels were directly converted from μCT to eight noded hexahedra. Isotropic and homogenous nonlinear damaging material properties (Fig. 2) were applied to each element. Axial loading was applied and a strain-based damageable elastic material property (Fig. 2) was applied iteratively. The strains within the trabecular bone cores were determined and used to apply the damaging criteria to five elements at a time; once the damaged elements were determined, their modulus was reduced. The model was rerun to determine the changes to the strain field and the next elements that would be damaged.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Intrinsic Material Properties of the FEM: (a) Smooth dashed curve shows stress versus strain of a body with infinite sites to break, behaving initially linearly, followed by a smooth softening region and then failure. Jagged curves show the mechanical response of a body with 10, 5, 2 and 1 finite site(s) to break. (b) Idealization of a body with one site to break that breaks in two stages. A two stage intrinsic material model was used in this study. Damage was introduced in two stages (primary and secondary events) by reducing the intrinsic Young's Modulus (Ei1) of elements exceeding chosen principal tensile strain values. Primary failure occurred at an intrinsic damage strain (εi1), which reduced the modulus to the Intrinsic damaged material modulus (Ei2) until loaded past the intrinsic rupture strain (εi2), where a secondary failure occurs further reducing the modulus to Ei35 = 100 MPa. Wi,total the intrinsic toughness modulus was estimated as the area under the damage curve.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Trabecular Bone Core Damage Site Prediction: 3D rendering of finite element model geometry obtained from Micro-CT imaging with damage sites resulting from axial compression with: Ei2 = 500 MPa, εi1 = 0.005, εi2 = 0.05. Left: Damage sites and deformation of the trabecular bone volume just prior to yield (0.002 offset method), εa = 0.018. Center: Damage sites and deformation of the trabecular bone volume after apparent yield (0.002 offset method). Right: Apparent axial stress-strain curve of the whole bone core. Red circle denotes the yield (0.002 offset method) point. The pre-yield (0.002 offset method) geometry (Left) clearly shows damage predicted during a nearly linear region of apparent deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mechanical Input Contour Plot: Color maps depict (a) the normalized apparent toughness modulus (Wa/Ea) and (b) normalized apparent yield strength (σay/Ea) resulting from FEA with εi1 = 0.005, εi2 (x-axis), and Ei2 (y-axis). The color map illustrates the nonlinear relationship between the intrinsic damage material level properties and the apparent mechanical properties. The similarity of the plots for toughness and strength is consistent with the correlation found between the apparent yield strength (σay) and apparent toughness modulus both experimentally and in the present computer modeling study. Additionally, the plots demonstrate that many combinations of intrinsic material level properties lead to effectively equivalent apparent mechanical properties.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stress-strain behavior of the FEM of trabecular bone cores at the apparent level with changes in the intrinsic material properties as a function of intrinsic damaged material modulus, Ei2 (Left) and intrinsic rupture strain, εi2 (Right). All models had the same geometry, intrinsic modulus, Ei1 = 10 GPa, intrinsic damage strain, εi1 = 0.005. The mechanical response of the trabecular bone core to increasing either εi2 or Ei2 was nonlinear as increasing damage properties corresponded with increased apparent level behavior until εi2 = 0.05 or Ei2 = 1100.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of damage quantity and distribution due to changes in intrinsic rupture strain (εi2): four whole trabecular bone core models with Ei1 = 10,000 MPa, εi2 = 0.005,Ei2 = 1100 MPa, and εi2 as indicated. The damage depicted shows the first 10,000 damage events predicted within each model. The left most top panel is the only model shown with the bone. The sites of damage in the trabecular bone core model are shown in the other panels without the bone volume rendering, enabling all damage to be visualized. Both spatial clustering and temporal clustering (color) can be observed. The lower the failure strain the more clustering appears to occur, both spatially and temporally. The blue damage occurred first with red occurring at the end. The clustering of damage spatially and temporally does not entirely explain the differences in apparent toughness moduli. The εi2 = 0.05 and εi2 = 0.1 appear to have nearly identical damage distributions; however, the apparent toughness moduli (Wa) differed by 15%. The number of secondary failures was different across the four models. The number of primary and secondary damage events were both moderately negatively correlated with normalized apparent toughness modulus (Wa/Ea,init; R2 = 0.1 for primary and R2 = 0.15 for secondary and R2 = 0.19 cumulatively). Apparently, the small number of secondary failures 0.015% in the εi2 = 0.05 model compared to the εi2 = 0.1 model's 0% secondary failures has a large effect on the apparent level mechanical properties.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Damage volume versus normalized apparent toughness modulus (Wa/Ea,init): The normalized apparent toughness modulus (Wa/Ea) and the amount of primary and secondary damage are only loosely related. The top of a line segment is the total damage that occurred in a model, and the bottom of the line segment is the amount of primary damage that occurred in a model. Therefore, the length of the line is the amount of secondary damage that occurred. A general observation is that the larger values of apparent toughness associate with short line segments (i.e., small amounts of secondary damage). In statistical analysis, however, apparent toughness (Wa/Ea) was weakly negatively related with primary (p < 0.001) and secondary damage volume in a linear multiple regression (R2model = 0.4 (p < 0.001), R2Primary|Secondary = 0.19 (p < 0.001), R2Secondary|Primary = 0.37 (p < 0.001)). Certain combinations of intrinsic material properties led to large amounts of damage without deteriorating apparent properties.

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