Nonlinear Behavior of Trabecular Bone at Small Strains

[+] Author and Article Information
Elise F. Morgan, Oscar C. Yeh, Wesley C. Chang

Orthopædic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

Tony M. Keaveny

Orthopædic Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720Department of Orthopædic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143

J Biomech Eng 123(1), 1-9 (Oct 16, 2000) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1338122 History: Received September 30, 1999; Revised October 16, 2000
Copyright © 2001 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Jones, R. M., 1998, Mechanics of Composite Materials, 2nd ed., Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.
Abufarsakh,  G., 1989, “New Material Models for Nonlinear Stress Strain Behavior of Composite Materials,” Composites, 20, No. 4, pp. 349–360.
Jones,  R. M., and Morgan,  H. S., 1977, “Analysis of Nonlinear Stress–Strain Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials,” AIAA J., 15, No. 12, pp. 1669–1676.
Keaveny,  T. M., Wachtel,  E. F., Ford,  C. M., and Hayes,  W. C., 1994, “Differences Between the Tensile and Compressive Strengths of Bovine Tibial Trabecular Bone Depend on Modulus,” J. Biomech., 27, No. 9, pp. 1137–1146.
Kopperdahl,  D. L., and Keaveny,  T. M., 1998, “Yield Strain Behavior of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 31, No. 7, pp. 601–608.
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, No. 5, pp. 405–410.
Frost,  H. M., 1992, “Perspectives: Bone’s Mechanical Usage Windows,” Bone Miner., 19, No. 3, pp. 257–271.
Linde,  F., and Hvid,  I., 1987, “Stiffness Behavior of Trabecular Bone Specimens,” J. Biomech., 20, No. 1, pp. 83–89.
Turner,  C. H., 1989, “Yield Behavior of Bovine Cancellous Bone,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 111, No. 3, pp. 256–260.
Keaveny,  T. M., Borchers,  R. E., Gibson,  L. J., and Hayes,  W. C., 1993, “Theoretical Analysis of the Experimental Artifact in Trabecular Bone Compressive Modulus,” J. Biomech., 26, Nos. 4–5, pp. 599–607.
Keaveny,  T. M., Pinilla,  T. P., Crawford,  R. P., Kopperdahl,  D. L., and Lou,  A., 1997, “Systematic and Random Errors in Compression Testing of Trabecular Bone,” J. Orthop. Res., 15, pp. 101–110.
Odgaard,  A., and Linde,  F., 1991, “The Underestimation of Young’s Modulus in Compressive Testing of Cancellous Bone Specimens,” J. Biomech., 24, No. 8, pp. 691–698.
Keaveny,  T. M., Guo,  X. E., Wachtel,  E. F., McMahon,  T. A., and Hayes,  W. C., 1994, “Trabecular Bone Exhibits Fully Linear Elastic Behavior and Yields at Low Strains,” J. Biomech., 27, No. 9, pp. 1127–1136.
Rohl,  L., Larsen,  E., Linde,  F., Odgaard,  A., and Jorgensen,  J., 1991, “Tensile and Compressive Properties of Cancellous Bone,” J. Biomech., 24, No. 12, pp. 1143–1149.
Zysset,  P. K., and Curnier,  A., 1996, “A 3D Damage Model for Trabecular Bone Based on Fabric Tensors,” J. Biomech., 29, No. 12, pp. 1549–1558.
Ladd,  A. J., Kinney,  J. H., Haupt,  D. L., and Goldstein,  S. A., 1998, “Finite-Element Modeling of Trabecular Bone: Comparison With Mechanical Testing and Determination of Tissue Modulus,” J. Orthop. Res., 16, No. 5, pp. 622–628.
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, No. 1, pp. 69–81.
Chang,  W. C. W., Christensen,  T. M., Pinilla,  T. P., and Keaveny,  T. M., 1999, “Isotropy of Uniaxial Yield Strains for Bovine Trabecular Bone,” J. Orthop. Res., 17, pp. 582–585.
Galante,  J., Rostoker,  W., and Ray,  R. D., 1970, “Physical Properties of Trabecular Bone,” Calcif. Tissue Res., 5, No. 3, pp. 236–246.
Keaveny,  T. M., and Hayes,  W. C., 1993, “A 20-Year Perspective on the Mechanical Properties of Trabecular Bone,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 115, No. 4(B), pp. 534–542.
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, No. 2, pp. 155–168.
Linde,  F., Hvid,  I., and Madsen,  F., 1992, “The Effect of Specimen Geometry on the Mechanical Behavior of Trabecular Bone Specimens,” J. Biomech., 25, pp. 359–368.
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, pp. 147–152.
Haddock,  S. M., Yeh,  O. C., Mummaneni,  P. M., Rosenberg,  W. S., and Keaveny,  T. M., 2000, “Fatigue Behavior of Human Vertebral Trabecular Bone,” Trans. Annu. Meet. — Orthop. Res. Soc., 25, p. 733.
Keaveny,  T. M., Wachtel,  E. F., and Kopperdahl,  D. L., 1999, “Mechanical Behavior of Human Trabecular Bone After Overloading,” J. Orthop. Res., 17, pp. 346–353.
Bowman,  S. M., Keaveny,  T. M., Gibson,  L. J., Hayes,  W. C., and McMahon,  T. A., 1994, “Compressive Creep Behavior of Bovine Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 27, pp. 301–310.
Carter,  D. R., and Hayes,  W. C., 1977, “The Compressive Behavior of Bone as a Two-Phase Porous Structure,” J. Bone Jt. Surg., 59-A, pp. 954–962.
Deligianni,  D. D., Maris,  A., and Missirlis,  Y. F., 1994, “Stress Relaxation Behavior of Trabecular Bone Specimens,” J. Biomech., 27, No. 12, pp. 1469–1476.
Linde,  F., Norgaard,  P., Hvid,  I., Odgaard,  A., and Soballe,  K., 1991, “Mechanical Properties of Trabecular Bone. Dependency on Strain Rate,” J. Biomech., 24, No. 9, pp. 803–809.
Schoenfeld,  C. M., Lautenschlager,  E. P., and Meyer,  P. R. J., 1974, “Mechanical Properties of Human Cancellous Bone in the Femoral Head,” Med. Biol. Eng., 12, No. 3, pp. 313–317.
Zilch,  H., Rohlmann,  A., Bergmann,  G., and Kolbel,  R., 1980, “Material Properties of Femoral Cancellous Bone in Axial Loading. Part II: Time Dependent Properties,” Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg., 97, No. 4, pp. 257–262.
Keaveny, T. M., Yeh, O. C., Morgan, E. F., Chang, W. C., and Haddock, S. M., 1998, “Nonlinear Elastic Behavior of Trabecular Bone,” World Congress of Biomechanics, Vol. 3, p. 428.
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, pp. 300–308.
Turner,  C., Anne,  V., and Pidaparti,  R., 1997, “A Uniform Strain Criterion for Trabecular Bone Adaptation: Do Continuum-Level Strain Gradients Drive Adaptation?” J. Biomech., 30, No. 6, pp. 555–563.
Rohlmann,  A., Zilch,  H., Bergmann,  G., and Kolbel,  R., 1980, “Material Properties of Femoral Cancellous Bone in Axial Loading. Part I: Time Independent Properties,” Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg., 97, No. 2, pp. 95–102.
Mosekilde,  L., Mosekilde,  L., and Danielsen,  C. C., 1987, “Biomechanical Competence of Vertebral Trabecular Bone in Relation to Ash Density and Age in Normal Individuals,” Bone, 8, No. 2, pp. 79–85.
Ashman,  R. B., and Rho,  J. Y., 1988, “Elastic Modulus of Trabecular Bone Material,” J. Biomech., 21, No. 3, pp. 177–181.
Linde,  F., Hvid,  I., and Pongsoipetch,  B., 1989, “Energy Absorptive Properties of Human Trabecular Bone Specimens During Axial Compression,” J. Orthop. Res., 7, No. 3, pp. 432–439.
Lotz,  J. C., Gerhart,  T. N., and Hayes,  W. C., 1990, “Mechanical Properties of Trabecular Bone From the Proximal Femur: A Quantitative CT Study,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr., 14, No. 1, pp. 107–114.
Ciarelli,  M. J., Goldstein,  S. A., Kuhn,  J. L., Cody,  D. D., and Brown,  M. B., 1991, “Evaluation of Orthogonal Mechanical Properties and Density of Human Trabecular Bone From the Major Metaphyseal Regions With Materials Testing and Computed Tomography,” J. Orthop. Res., 9, No. 5, pp. 674–682.
Goulet,  R. W., Goldstein,  S. A., Ciarelli,  M. J., Kuhn,  J. L., Brown,  M. B., and Feldkamp,  L. A., 1994, “The Relationship Between the Structural and Orthogonal Compressive Properties of Trabecular Bone,” J. Biomech., 27, No. 4, pp. 375–389.
Keller,  T. S., 1994, “Predicting the Compressive Mechanical Behavior of Bone,” J. Biomech., 27, No. 9, pp. 1159–1168.
Hou,  F. J., Lang,  S. M., Hoshaw,  S. J., Reimann,  D. A., and Fyhrie,  D. P., 1998, “Human Vertebral Body Apparent and Hard Tissue Stiffness,” J. Biomech., 31, No. 11, pp. 1009–1015.


Grahic Jump Location
Reductions in modulus as a function of apparent density for all anatomic sites. No significant correlation existed in compression at either (A) 0.20 or (B) 0.40 percent strain. Positive correlations were found in tension at (C) 0.20 and (D) 0.40 percent strain.
Grahic Jump Location
Percent differences in initial modulus resulting from the use of different polynomial orders and strain ranges for each anatomic site in (A) compression and (B) tension. Each difference is computed with respect to the initial modulus determined from a quadratic fit from 0–0.20 percent strain. Each column represents the mean difference for each site; error bars indicate 1 SD. As shown by the small differences corresponding to the nonlinear fits, the initial modulus was not sensitive to either the order of the nonlinear fit or the strain range used in the fit. Much larger differences resulted when moduli from linear and quadratic fits were compared.
Grahic Jump Location
Reductions in tangent modulus in the human vertebra as a function of strain for two different strain rates: 0.50 percent per second and 0.10 percent per second. At each strain, reductions in tangent modulus were greater at the slower strain rate (p<0.001).
Grahic Jump Location
A tensile stress–strain curve for trabecular bone from the human proximal tibia showing typical nonlinear behavior. The open circle represents the yield point determined by the 0.2 percent offset technique when a strain range of 0.10–0.40 percent is used to define the initial modulus, and the closed circle represents the yield point corresponding to a strain range of 0–0.10 percent. The former strain range was used by Chang et al. 18, and the latter in the current study. As evident, the use of different strain ranges in defining the elastic modulus can result in different yield points. Yield strain can be particularly sensitive to this change in modulus definition.
Grahic Jump Location
For each anatomic site, specimens were machined such that the principal trabecular orientation was aligned with the longitudinal axis of the core. (A) One–two vertebral specimens were cored in the superior–inferior direction from each vertebral body. At each stage of machining the proximal tibiae and femora, contact radiographs were used to identify regions of homogeneous, well-oriented trabecular bone. These regions were then excised in the subsequent machining stage. (B) A 15-mm-thick slab of each proximal femur aligned with the femoral neck axis yielded one specimen from each of the greater trochanteric and neck regions. (C) Medial and lateral portions of each proximal tibia were separated by a sagittal cut (a medial–lateral view of the lateral half of a right tibia is shown here). A 15-mm-thick slab aligned with the trabecular orientation in the sagittal plane was excised from each portion. This slab tended to be in the posterior region and at a small angle (10–20 deg) to the frontal plane. Each slab yielded one specimen; two specimens from each tibia were obtained.
Grahic Jump Location
Percent reductions in tangent modulus compared to the initial tangent modulus for each site in both tension and compression. Error bars represent 1 SD. Reductions in the tangent modulus were calculated at (A) 0.20 percent strain and (B) 0.40 percent strain. Within each graph, groups marked “a” were significantly different (p<0.05) from those marked “b.” The reduction in tangent modulus was greater in tension than in compression (p<0.001) for all sites at 0.40 percent strain and for the bovine tibia at 0.20 percent strain (p<0.001).
Grahic Jump Location
The reduction in tangent modulus computed using strains measured by the 25 mm gage length extensometer attached across the endcaps was compared with that computed using strains simultaneously measured by the 5 mm gage length extensometer attached directly to the specimen surface. Results shown are representative of all anatomic sites and loading modes with respect to the close agreement between the modulus reductions calculated from data from each extensometer. Error bars indicate ±1 SD. Paired t-tests for all groups at each of the seven strains detected no significant differences (p>0.10,power>0.81). These results establish that the observed nonlinearity was not due to any possible slipping at the bone–endcap interface or nonlinear behavior of the cyanoacrylate used to bond the specimens in the endcaps.



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