Research Papers

Comparison of Mixed and Kinematic Uniform Boundary Conditions in Homogenized Elasticity of Femoral Trabecular Bone Using Microfinite Element Analyses

[+] Author and Article Information
Jarunan Panyasantisuk

Institute for Surgical Technology
and Biomechanics,
University of Bern,
Stauffacherstr. 78,
Bern CH-3014, Switzerland
e-mail: jarunan.panyasantisuk@istb.unibe.ch

Dieter H. Pahr

Institute for Lightweight Design
and Structural Biomechanics,
Vienna University of Technology,
Gusshausstr. 27-29/317,
Vienna A-1040, Austria
e-mail: pahr@ilsb.tuwien.ac.at

Thomas Gross

Institute for Lightweight Design
and Structural Biomechanics,
Vienna University of Technology,
Gusshausstr. 27-29/317,
Vienna A-1040, Austria
e-mail: tgross@ilsb.tuwien.ac.at

Philippe K. Zysset

Institute for Surgical Technology
and Biomechanics,
University of Bern, Stauffacherstr. 78,
Bern CH-3014, Switzerland
e-mail: philippe.zysset@istb.unibe.ch

Manuscript received May 30, 2014; final manuscript received October 23, 2014; accepted manuscript posted November 3, 2014; published online December 10, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Blaine Christiansen.

J Biomech Eng 137(1), 011002 (Jan 01, 2015) Paper No: BIO-14-1235; doi: 10.1115/1.4028968 History: Received May 30, 2014; Revised October 23, 2014; Accepted November 03, 2014; Online December 10, 2014

Mechanical properties of human trabecular bone play an important role in age-related bone fragility and implant stability. Microfinite element (μFE) analysis allows computing the apparent elastic properties of trabecular bone for use in homogenized FE (hFE) analysis, but the results depend unfortunately on the type of applied boundary conditions (BCs). In this study, 167 human femoral trabecular cubic regions with a side length of 5.3 mm were extracted from three proximal femora and analyzed using μFE analysis to compare systematically their stiffness with kinematic uniform BCs (KUBCs) and periodicity-compatible mixed uniform BCs (PMUBCs). The obtained elastic constants were then used in the volume fraction and fabric-based orthotropic Zysset–Curnier model to identify their respective model parameters. As expected, PMUBCs lead to more compliant apparent elastic properties than KUBCs, especially in shear. The differences in stiffness decreased with bone volume fraction and mean intercept length (MIL). Unlike KUBCs, PMUBCs were sensitive to heterogeneity of the biopsies. The Zysset–Curnier model fitted the apparent elastic constants successfully in both cases with adjusted coefficients of determination (radj2) of 0.986 for KUBCs and 0.975 for PMUBCs. The proper use of these BCs for hFE analysis of whole bones will need to be investigated in future work.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Silva, M. J., Keaveny, T. M., and Hayes, W. C., 1998, “Computed Tomography-Based Finite Element Analysis Predicts Failure Loads and Fracture Patterns for Vertebral Sections,” J. Orthop. Res., 16(3), pp. 300–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cody, D. D., Gross, G. J., Hou, F. J., Spencer, H. J., Goldstein, S. A., and Fyhrie, D. P., 1999, “Femoral Strength is Better Predicted by Finite Element Models Than QCT and DXA,” J. Biomech., 32(10), pp. 1013–1020. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Keyak, J., Kaneko, T., Tehranzadeh, J., and Skinner, H., 2005, “Predicting Proximal Femoral Strength Using Structural Engineering Models,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 437, pp. 219–228. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Keaveny, T. M., 2010, “Biomechanical Computed Tomography-Noninvasive Bone Strength Analysis Using Clinical Computed Tomography Scans,” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1192(1), pp. 57–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ün, K., Bevill, G., and Keaveny, T. M., 2006, “The Effects of Side-Artifacts on the Elastic Modulus of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 39(11), pp. 1955–1963. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Odgaard, A., Hvid, I., and Linde, F., 1989, “Compressive Axial Strain Distributions in Cancellous Bone Specimens,” J. Biomech., 22(8), pp. 829–835. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hollister, S. J., and Kikuchi, N., 1994, “Homogenization Theory and Digital Imaging: A Basis for Studying the Mechanics and Design Principles of Bone Tissue,” Biotechnol. Bioeng., 43(7), pp. 586–596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Rietbergen, B., Weinans, H., Huiskes, R., and Odgaard, A., 1995, “A New Method to Determine Trabecular Bone Elastic Properties and Loading Using Micromechanical Finite-Element Models,” J. Biomech., 28(1), pp. 69–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zysset, P. K., Goullet, R. W., and Hollister, S. J., 1998, “A Global Relationship Between Trabecular Bone Morphology and Homogenized Elastic Properties,” ASME J. Biomed. Eng., 120(5), pp. 640–646. [CrossRef]
Pahr, D. H., and Zysset, P. K., 2009, “A Comparison of Enhanced Continuum FE With Micro FE Models of Human Vertebral Bodies,” J. Biomech., 42(4), pp. 455–462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hill, R., 1963, “Elastic Properties of Reinforced Solids: Some Theoretical Principles,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 11(5), pp. 357–372. [CrossRef]
Sanchez-Palencia, E., 1980, “Non-Homogeneous Media and Vibration Theory,” Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 127, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Suquet, P., 1987, “Elements of Homogenization for Inelastic Solid Mechanics,” Homogenization Techniques for Composite Media, Vol. 272, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 193–278.
Hollister, S. J., Fyhrie, D., Jepsen, K., and Goldstein, S. A., 1991, “Application of Homogenization Theory to the Study of Trabecular Bone Mechanics,” J. Biomech., 24(9), pp. 825–839. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pahr, D., and Zysset, P., 2008, “Influence of Boundary Conditions on Computed Apparent Elastic Properties of Cancellous Bone,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 7(6), pp. 463–476. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hazanov, S., and Amieur, M., 1995, “On Overall Properties of Elastic Heterogeneous Bodies Smaller Than the Representative Volume,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 33(9), pp. 1289–1301. [CrossRef]
Ostoja-Starzewski, M., 2006, “Material Spatial Randomness: From Statistical to Representative Volume Element,” Probab. Eng. Mech., 21(2), pp. 112–132. [CrossRef]
Kowalczyk, P., 2003, “Elastic Properties of Cancellous Bone Derived From Finite Element Models of Parameterized Microstructure Cells,” J. Biomech., 36(7), pp. 961–972. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Anthoine, A., 1995, “Derivation of the In-Plane Elastic Characteristics of Masonry Through Homogenization Theory,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 32(2), pp. 137–163. [CrossRef]
Hazanov, S., and Huet, C., 1994, “Order Relationships for Boundary Conditions Effect in Heterogeneous Bodies Smaller Than the Representative Volume,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 42(12), pp. 1995–2011. [CrossRef]
Harrigan, T. P., Jasty, M., Mann, R. W., and Harris, W. H., 1988, “Limitations of the Continuum Assumption in Cancellous Bone,” J. Biomech., 21(4), pp. 269–275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cowin, S. C., 1985, “The Relationship Between the Elasticity Tensor and the Fabric Tensor,” Mech. Mater., 4(2), pp. 137–147. [CrossRef]
Zysset, P. K., 2003, “A Review of Morphology–Elasticity Relationships in Human Trabecular Bone: Theories and Experiments,” J. Biomech., 36(10), pp. 1469–1485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zysset, P., and Curnier, A., 1995, “An Alternative Model for Anisotropic Elasticity Based on Fabric Tensors,” Mech. Mater., 21(4), pp. 243–250. [CrossRef]
Gross, T., Pahr, D. H., and Zysset, P. K., 2013, “Morphology–Elasticity Relationships Using Decreasing Fabric Information of Human Trabecular Bone From Three Major Anatomical Locations,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 12(4), pp. 793–800. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Harrigan, T. P., and Mann, R. W., 1984, “Characterization of Microstructural Anisotropy in Orthotropic Materials Using a Second Rank Tensor,” J. Mater. Sci., 19(3), pp. 761–767. [CrossRef]
Whitehouse, W. J., 1974, “The Quantitative Morphology of Anisotropic Trabecular Bone,” J. Microsc., 101(2), pp. 153–168. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Riedler, T. W., and Calvard, S., 1978, “Picture Thresholding Using an Iterative Selection Method,” IEEE Trans. Systems, Man Cybern., 8(8), pp. 630–632. [CrossRef]
Pistoia, W., Van Rietbergen, B., Lochmüller, E.-M., Lill, C., Eckstein, F., and Rüegsegger, P., 2002, “Estimation of Distal Radius Failure Load With Micro-Finite Element Analysis Models Based on Three-Dimensional Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography Images,” Bone, 30(6), pp. 842–848. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rice, J. C., Cowin, S. C., and Bowman, J. A., 1988, “On the Dependence of the Elasticity and Strength of Cancellous Bone on Apparent Density,” J. Biomech., 21(2), pp. 155–168. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Top: a μFE mesh converted directly from a μCT image with a resolution of 36 μm; middle: the uni-axial loading case in 1-direction applying PMUBCs; bottom: the shear loading case in 1- and 3-direction applying PMUBCs; ui,ti, and ei are displacements, tractions, and unit directions, respectively. North–South plane is normal to West–East and Bottom–Top planes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Examples of highly heterogeneous bone biopsies which were not included in the filtered data set: BV/TV = 11.21% (left) and 24.07% (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) The relationship between BV/TV and degree of anisotropy of the femoral trabecular bone cubes from Gross et al. [25] and the current study. The complete data set of the current study includes 167 femoral bone biopsies. The filtered data set excludes highly heterogeneous bone samples, and includes the 126 remaining bone cubes. (b) The linear regression of the relationship between model stiffness ln(SmodelKUBC) and μFE stiffness ln(SFEorthoKUBC) based on KUBCs in log space. The data sets of Gross et al. and of the current study are in line despite the distinct μFE model resolution and the rotation of the μCT image necessary to align the biopsies with the fabric tensor in the current study.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A comparison of μFE stiffness tensor components based on KUBCs and PMUBCs in log space. As expected, the stiffness from PMUBCs are more compliant than from KUBCs. Yet, the μFE stiffness tensor components of the two BCs highly correlate.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Δ denotes the difference of μFE stiffness tensor components between KUBCs and PMUBCs; (a) the relationship of Δ and BV/TV: Δ decreases with increasing BV/TV. The shear components have the highest Δ, while the diagonal terms of the normal components have the lowest Δ; (b) the relationship of Δ and fabric: Δ in the major fabric direction is lower than that in the minor directions.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The linear regressions of the relationship between the model and μFE stiffness based on PMUBCs. The filtered data set based on a heterogeneity criterion excludes successfully the outliers in the Zysset–Curnier model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The filtered data set: the linear regression of the relationship between the model stiffness and μFE stiffness based on PMUBCs. Using the split linear systems improved the model fitting.



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