0
Research Papers

Full-Field Strain Measurement During Mechanical Testing of the Human Femur at Physiologically Relevant Strain Rates

[+] Author and Article Information
Lorenzo Grassi

Division of Solid Mechanics,
Lund University,
Lund 22363, Sweden
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Lund University,
BMC D13, Sölvegatan 19,
Lund 22184, Sweden
e-mail: lorenzo.grassi@bme.lth.se

Sami P. Väänänen, Jukka S. Jurvelin

Department of Applied Physics,
University of Eastern Finland,
Kuopio 70211, Finland

Saber Amin Yavari, Amir A. Zadpoor

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and
Materials Engineering,
Delft University of Technology,
Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands

Harrie Weinans

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and
Materials Engineering,
Delft University of Technology,
Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands
Department of Orthopaedics,
UMC Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands

Matti Ristinmaa

Division of Solid Mechanics,
Lund University,
Lund 22363, Sweden

Hanna Isaksson

Division of Solid Mechanics,
Lund University,
Lund 22363, Sweden
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Lund University,
Lund 22184, Sweden
Department of Orthopaedics,
Lund University,
Lund 22184, Sweden

Manuscript received May 8, 2014; final manuscript received August 13, 2014; accepted manuscript posted August 27, 2014; published online September 17, 2014. Assoc. Editor: David Corr.

J Biomech Eng 136(11), 111010 (Sep 17, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: BIO-14-1199; doi: 10.1115/1.4028415 History: Received May 08, 2014; Revised August 13, 2014; Accepted August 27, 2014

Understanding the mechanical properties of human femora is of great importance for the development of a reliable fracture criterion aimed at assessing fracture risk. Earlier ex vivo studies have been conducted by measuring strains on a limited set of locations using strain gauges (SGs). Digital image correlation (DIC) could instead be used to reconstruct the full-field strain pattern over the surface of the femur. The objective of this study was to measure the full-field strain response of cadaver femora tested at a physiological strain rate up to fracture in a configuration resembling single stance. The three cadaver femora were cleaned from soft tissues, and a white background paint was applied with a random black speckle pattern over the anterior surface. The mechanical tests were conducted up to fracture at a constant displacement rate of 15 mm/s, and two cameras recorded the event at 3000 frames per second. DIC was performed to retrieve the full-field displacement map, from which strains were derived. A low-pass filter was applied over the measured displacements before the crack opened in order to reduce the noise level. The noise levels were assessed using a dedicated control plate. Conversely, no filtering was applied at the frames close to fracture to get the maximum resolution. The specimens showed a linear behavior of the principal strains with respect to the applied force up to fracture. The strain rate was comparable to the values available in literature from in vivo measurements during daily activities. The cracks opened and fully propagated in less than 1 ms, and small regions with high values of the major principal strains could be spotted just a few frames before the crack opened. This corroborates the hypothesis of a strain-driven fracture mechanism in human bone. The data represent a comprehensive collection of full-field strains, both at physiological load levels and up to fracture. About 10,000 points were tracked on each bone, providing superior spatial resolution compared to ∼15 measurements typically collected using SGs. These experimental data collection can be further used for validation of numerical models, and for experimental verification of bone constitutive laws and fracture criteria.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Brauer, C. A., Coca-Perraillon, M., Cutler, D. M., and Rosen, A. B., 2009, “Incidence and Mortality of Hip Fractures in the United States,” JAMA, 302(14), pp. 1573–1579. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Meling, T., Harboe, K., and Søreide, K., 2009, “Incidence of Traumatic Long-Bone Fractures Requiring In-Hospital Management: A Prospective Age- and Gender-Specific Analysis of 4890 Fractures,” Injury, 40(11), pp. 1212–1219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cauley, J. A., 2013, “Public Health Impact of Osteoporosis,” J. Gerontol., Ser. A, 68(10), pp. 1243–1251. [CrossRef]
Roth, T., Kammerlander, C., Gosch, M., Luger, T. J., and Blauth, M., 2010, “Outcome in Geriatric Fracture Patients and How It Can be Improved,” Osteoporos. Int., 21(Suppl 4), pp. S615–S619. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kanis, J. A., Borgstrom, F., De Laet, C., Johansson, H., Johnell, O., Jonsson, B., Oden, A., Zethraeus, N., Pfleger, B., and Khaltaev, N., 2005, “Assessment of Fracture Risk,” Osteoporos. Int., 16(6), pp. 581–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Silverman, S. L., and Calderon, A. D., 2010, “The Utility and Limitations of FRAX: A US Perspective,” Curr. Osteoporos. Rep., 8(4), pp. 192–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lekamwasam, S., 2010, “Application of FRAX Model to Sri Lankan Postmenopausal Women,” J. Clin. Densitom., 13(1), pp. 51–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amin, S., Kopperdhal, D. L., Melton, L. J., Achenbach, S. J., Therneau, T. M., Riggs, B. L., Keaveny, T. M., and Khosla, S., 2011, “Association of Hip Strength Estimates by Finite-Element Analysis With Fractures in Women and Men,” J. Bone Miner. Res., 26(7), pp. 1593–1600. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Szulc, P., Duboeuf, F., Schott, A. M., Dargent-Molina, P., Meunier, P. J., and Delmas, P. D., 2006, “Structural Determinants of Hip Fracture in Elderly Women: Re-Analysis of the Data From the EPIDOS Study,” Osteoporos. Int., 17(2), pp. 231–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Currey, J., 2009, “Measurement of the Mechanical Properties of Bone: A Recent History,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 467(8), pp. 1948–1954. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Juszczyk, M. M., Cristofolini, L., and Viceconti, M., 2011, “The Human Proximal Femur Behaves Linearly Elastic Up to Failure Under Physiological Loading Conditions,” J. Biomech., 44(12), pp. 2259–2266. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cristofolini, L., Schileo, E., Juszczyk, M., Taddei, F., Martelli, S., and Viceconti, M., 2010, “Mechanical Testing of Bones: The Positive Synergy of Finite-Element Models and in vitro Experiments,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A, 368(1920), pp. 2725–2763. [CrossRef]
Lochmüller, E. M., Groll, O., Kuhn, V., and Eckstein, F., 2002, “Mechanical Strength of the Proximal Femur as Predicted From Geometric and Densitometric Bone Properties at the Lower Limb Versus the Distal Radius,” Bone, 30(1), pp. 207–216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cristofolini, L., Conti, G., Juszczyk, M., Cremonini, S., Van Sint Jan, S., and Viceconti, M., 2010, “Structural Behaviour and Strain Distribution of the Long Bones of the Human Lower Limbs,” J. Biomech., 43(5), pp. 826–835. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sutton, M. A., Orteu, J. J., and Schreier, H., 2009, Image Correlation for Shape, Motion and Deformation Measurements: Basic Concepts, Theory and Applications, Springer, New York.
Dickinson, A. S., Taylor, A. C., Ozturk, H., and Browne, M., 2011, “Experimental Validation of a Finite Element Model of the Proximal Femur Using Digital Image Correlation and a Composite Bone Model,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 133(1), p. 014504. [CrossRef]
Op Den Buijs, J., and Dragomir-Daescu, D., 2011, “Validated Finite Element Models of the Proximal Femur Using Two-Dimensional Projected Geometry and Bone Density,” Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 104(2), pp. 168–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gilchrist, S., Guy, P., and Cripton, P. A, 2013, “Development of an Inertia-Driven Model of Sideways Fall for Detailed Study of Femur Fracture Mechanics,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 135(12), p. 121001. [CrossRef]
Väänänen, S. P., Amin Yavari, S., Weinans, H., Zadpoor, A. A., Jurvelin, J. S., and Isaksson, H., 2013, “Repeatability of Digital Image Correlation for Measurement of Surface Strains in Composite Long Bones,” J. Biomech., 46(11), pp. 1928–1932. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amin Yavari, S., van der Stok, J., Weinans, H., and Zadpoor, A. A., 2013, “Full-Field Strain Measurement and Fracture Analysis of Rat Femora in Compression Test,” J. Biomech., 46(7), pp. 1282–1292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cristofolini, L., Juszczyk, M., Taddei, F., and Viceconti, M., 2009, “Strain Distribution in the Proximal Human Femoral Metaphysis,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H, 223(3), pp. 273–288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Viceconti, M., Taddei, F., Montanari, L., Testi, D., Leardini, A., Clapworthy, G., and Van Sint Jan, S., 2007, “Multimod Data Manager: A Tool for Data Fusion,” Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 87(2), pp. 148–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bornert, M., Brémand, F., Doumalin, P., Dupré, J.-C., Fazzini, M., Grédiac, M., Hild, F., Mistou, S., Molimard, J., Orteu, J.-J., Robert, L., Surrel, Y., Vacher, P., and Wattrisse, B., 2008, “Assessment of Digital Image Correlation Measurement Errors: Methodology and Results,” Exp. Mech., 49(3), pp. 353–370. [CrossRef]
Burr, D. B., Milgrom, C., Fyhrie, D., Forwood, M., Nyska, M., Finestone, A., Hoshaw, S., Saiag, E., and Simkin, A., 1996, “In Vivo Measurement of Human Tibial Strains During Vigorous Activity,” Bone, 18(5), pp. 405–410. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Al Nazer, R., Lanovaz, J., Kawalilak, C., Johnston, J. D., and Kontulainen, S., 2012, “Direct In Vivo Strain Measurements in Human Bone—A Systematic Literature Review,” J. Biomech., 45(1), pp. 27–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wolff, J., 1986, The Law of Bone Remodeling (Translation of the German 1892 ed.), Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Kersh, M. E., Zysset, P. K., Pahr, D. H., Wolfram, U., Larsson, D., and Pandy, M. G., 2013, “Measurement of Structural Anisotropy in Femoral Trabecular Bone Using Clinical-Resolution CT Images,” J. Biomech., 46(15), pp. 2659–2666. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
San Antonio, T., Ciaccia, M., Müller-Karger, C., and Casanova, E., 2012, “Orientation of Orthotropic Material Properties in a Femur FE Model: A Method Based on the Principal Stresses Directions,” Med. Eng. Phys., 34(7), pp. 914–919. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schileo, E., Taddei, F., Cristofolini, L., and Viceconti, M., 2008, “Subject-Specific Finite Element Models Implementing a Maximum Principal Strain Criterion are Able to Estimate Failure Risk and Fracture Location on Human Femurs Tested In Vitro,” J. Biomech., 41(2), pp. 356–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Perry, C. C., 1986, “Strain-Gage Reinforcement Effects on Orthotropic Materials,” Exp. Tech., 10(2), pp. 20–24. [CrossRef]
Malo, M. K. H., Rohrbach, D., Isaksson, H., Töyräs, J., Jurvelin, J. S., Tamminen, I. S., Kröger, H., and Raum, K., 2013, “Longitudinal Elastic Properties and Porosity of Cortical Bone Tissue Vary With Age in Human Proximal Femur,” Bone, 53(2), pp. 451–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grassi, L., Väänänen, S. P., Amin Yavari, S., Weinans, H., Jurvelin, J. S., Zadpoor, A. A., and Isaksson, H., 2013, “Experimental Validation of Finite Element Model for Proximal Composite Femur Using Optical Measurements,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 21(1), pp. 86–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Poelert, S., Valstar, E., Weinans, H., and Zadpoor, A. A., 2013, “Patient-Specific Finite Element Modeling of Bones,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H, 227(4), pp. 464–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Experimental setup. (b) A raw image from the master DIC camera, showing one sample with its control plate. (c) Sketch of the specimen preparation. Frontal plane was defined by the three contact points on the frontal side of the femur, depicted with red circles. The shaft axis was defined by the two most lateral points at the smaller trochanter level and at the cutting plane level, respectively (blue triangles). This reference system was used to guide the insertion of the distal pot, and the application of the protective cap on the femoral head. The position of the three virtual SGs is shown with green squares.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Force–displacement curves for the three specimens tested. Specimen #1 is shown in red (dotted line), #2 in green (dashed line), and #3 in blue (continuous line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Evolution of the major (positive sector) and minor (negative sector) principal strains, as a function of the applied force, in the simulated SGs for the three femora. The strain gage on the head is depicted in blue (continuous line), the one on the neck in green (dashed line), and the one at the diaphysis level in red (dotted line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The orientation of the major principal strain direction for the three femora at four different load levels, defined by 75%, 100%, and 150% of the BW, and at the frame immediately before the crack formation. Only a subsampling of the points was depicted with arrows, and the direction of the other points is indicated by the background color of the femur, according to the legend on the right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The orientation of the minor principal strain direction for the three femora at four different load levels, defined by 75%, 100%, and 150% of the BW, and at the frame immediately before the crack formation. Only a subsampling of the points was depicted with arrows, and the direction of the other points is indicated by the background color of the femur, according to the legend on the right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Major principal strain distribution for the three femora at four different load levels, defined by 75%, 100%, and 150% of the BW, and at the frame immediately before the crack formation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Minor principal strain distribution for the three femora at four different load levels, defined by 75%, 100%, and 150% of the BW, and at the frame immediately before the crack formation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Crack formation and propagation for specimens #2 and #3: the major principal strain distribution is superimposed on the raw pictures recorded. The major principal strains after the crack opened are not shown, as the fast surface motion resulted in a slightly out-of-focus picture. This impaired the correct image correlation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fracture limit plot for specimens #2 and #3 at the last frame before the crack is detected. The 5% of the points with a higher sum of the principal strains is evidenced in black in the plots (left), and their anatomical location is shown with the same color (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The orientation of the major and minor principal strain directions for specimen #2 at the frame immediately before the crack formation. The orientations are reported over a sagittal section of the femur obtained with a high-resolution CT scanner (Verity CT scanner, Planmend, Finland). The CT images and the full-field orientation data were coregistered manually, with aim of qualitatively showing the correspondence between the principal strain directions on the bone surface, and the internal trabecular orientation.

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