Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Laboratory No./ Date Biomechanics Lab #6 - Experiment Date: 11/9/2015 - LAB: Monday –
Due Date: 11/16/15
Josh Chiu - Rotated among stations during the lab experiment. For the
lab report, Josh completed elements 7 (Results/Data) and also
contributed to the other section of the assignment. Josh also worked on
sections 8-10 with the entire team.
X________________________________________________
X________________________________________________
X________________________________________________
Abstract:
Two major categories of bone are trabecular and cortical bone. Trabecular bone provides strength and support
while the cortical bone situated on the exterior establishes an outer layer of protection. This experiment focused
on the proper analysis of bones’ compressive behavior, through use of the Insight2A machine. The methods
geometry within TestWorks software were used. The material specimens studied included two uncooked
chicken femurs (representing cortical and whole bone) and polyurethane foam (representing trabecular bone).
The viscoelastic properties of these specimens were tested using cyclic loading/stress relaxation methods and
failure tests to further analyze mechanical properties. The results obtained allowed for characterization of the
mechanical behavior of cortical, whole, and trabecular bone. Percent hysteresis and stress relaxation were
calculated from the peak/valley loads obtained in cyclic and stress relaxation testing. Furthermore, during
failure testing, mechanical properties such as ultimate load, ultimate elongation, energy absorption, stiffness,
ultimate stress, ultimate strain, and elastic modulus were obtained for further analysis and comparison among
cortical, whole, and trabecular bone. These results were tabulated and comparisons among them made on the
basis of elongation endpoints and test speeds. Finally, the characteristic mechanical properties determined in
this lab were compared to theoretical values for various types of bone as well as to materials previously tested
Nomenclature:
g = gram (mass)
l = length (mm)
N = newton (force, N)
t = thickness (mm)
s = second (time)
w = width (mm)
ε = strain (dimensionless)
εi = instantaneous Strain
Objective:
The objective of this lab was to perform cyclic, stress relaxation, and failure testing on different structural
components of bone for proper analysis of their compressive behavior. Different endpoints and loading rates
were issued for further analysis of material responses and data collection. These results were further analyzed
and tabulated to provide further information on the viscoelastic and mechanical properties of bones.
Theory
The human long bone consists of two major types of bone: cortical and trabecular bone. Bone is
structurally complex, partly consisting of hydroxyapatite mineral crystals in the molecular level. These crystals
rest within collagen fibers, forming the concentric lamellas; the concentric lamellas form the Haversian canal,
one of many canals grouped into osteons in the bone (Wayne, 2015). Represented below is a simple schematic
as other properties that may affect its mechanical behavior, such as the age of the bone, corrosion, and the rate
Regarding the two major types of bone, trabecular bone is spongy, with a porous, less-compact type of
structure compared to the anisotropic cortical bone; in contrast, the behavior of cortical bone can be dependent
on the orientation of the bone to which a force is applied, which may be due in part by the organizational
structure and arrangement of the lamellae (Wayne, 2015). However, in the following test only uniaxial
compression is applied longitudinally. The figure shown below represents how density has an effect on the
resistant to deformation, and therefore is more likely to fail than a bone of a lesser density. This data suggests
that increasing the density of the bone increases properties such as the elastic modulus and ultimate stress
(Wayne 2015). The equation below can be used to determine the stress at a particular region (based on Stress-
𝜎 = 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵𝜀 − 1)
Stress relaxation is defined as a change in stress over time while maintaining a constant strain; a Stress
vs Time graph would be expected to display a decrease in peak and valley loads in cyclic loading with constant
strain endpoints, or a decay in induced stress over a hold time in constant strain, until a plateau is reached.
Therefore these curves would imply that the material is exhibiting viscoelastic behavior.
Hysteresis, the area between the loading and unloading curves, is an important indicator of the
properties exhibited by cortical bone (refer to figure below); as strain is induced, the percent hysteresis is
expected to increase as hysteresis energy is released, or dissipated. Likewise, the graph shown below from a
preexisting experiment is expected to show evidence of hysteresis in the cortical bone model:
Figure 3. Percent hysteresis as a function of instantaneous strain, in different loading orientations.
Furthermore, this suggests that the orientation would have an effect on hysteresis. Since the setup for the bone
in this lab would have a longitudinal orientation (highest of the three orientations tested, shown above), percent
hysteresis will be relatively prominent when determined in the Load vs Time graphs.
For a whole cortical bone to undergo uniaxial compression, upper and lower fixtures of the frame should
take into account the geometry of the ends of the chicken femur. The femur with the intact epiphysis should be
placed between platens that have pits to accommodate the round shape of the bone ends. For the trabecular
bone, platens flat ends would be used for a proper compression test.
Chicken femurs used as models for human long bones may be sufficient for testing in comparison to
using actual human long bones. To obtain the most desirable data during the course of the experiment, it is
paramount that the bone must be harvested and prepared in a proper manner. An ideal femur would be absent
of any attaching soft tissue, such as muscles and ligaments. It is recommended that they would be removed
properly using tools such as a knife; these nuisances can hinder experimental data due to increased bone
slippage during compression testing, or accounting for distance adjustment errors such as weight, outer
diameter, and gage length. Furthermore, it is imperative that the bone be kept under moist conditions, as dry
bone may behave differently compared to wet bone (Wayne, 2015). Using a wet object, such as a moistened
gauze pad or paper towel, may be acceptable to maintain moisture as if the bone was left intact and packaged at
Procedure
After logging in to the computers and turning on the frame, TestWorks was opened and the method
called “Multicycle Compression to Displacement Points” was selected for the first method of testing. The load
cell was then calibrated. Two samples, one whole bone and the other cortical bone, were weighted on a scale to
help determine the density; width of the outer and inner minor and major diameters were also measured. The
trabecular bone was measured and weighed likewise; data were input into the table below, and three trials were
material used (chicken femur or the trabecular bone model). Then, the assigned biological tissue handler would
clip a surgical table cover around the lower support to limit contamination of the frame. The construct was then
mounted; attention was paid to the load cell meter; it was noted that small changes in displacement may cause
large loads. The gage length was then measured and added to the table above. Regarding material input test
parameters, the hold time, number of cycles, endpoints, and test speeds were set based on the data shown below.
The lower safety stop was checked to prevent an overload of the construct or the grips that would be
used in the testing. The lab instructor checked the testing parameters before beginning the test. A prompt asked
to set a preload, which was set at 10 N of load; in addition, the sample was named, and would later be exported.
The test was started, and the Load vs Time graph was observed through the course of the testing. If the test had
not stopped, the red button on the top-right corner or the spacebar sufficed in ending the test. For normal testing
conditions, a prompt suggested to return the crosshead; it was assured that the top support would not contact the
bottom support – but the cancel option was selected in all cases. Thereafter, the results were checked: any
major/unusual disparities had meant that the test may have had to be redone; otherwise, the sample was saved.
The next endpoints/ test speeds would then be selected for the material, and would be tested as necessary.
Afterwards, the next type of test that was done was the compression to failure, or “Compression-noExt-
GageAdj” method. Again, the gage length was measured after the material was placed and fastened between
the platens, lower safety stop was readjusted, and the load cell and crosshead displacement was zeroed. The
testing parameters used to fail the materials, in a respective manner, are shown below:
Following panel inputs, an instructor again checked for any possible discrepancies. After an all-clear
signal was given, the failure test proceeded. A 10 N preload would be applied automatically, and the test was
run. During the progression to failure, the Load vs Time graph was observed; after test completion, the ‘cancel’
option was chosen, and the dimensions of the tested material were measured. The data was saved and exported.
Finally, the biological tissue handler would disinfect any areas that potentially had been contaminated by
residue from the chicken femurs, which may include the platens and the caliper. Meanwhile, the data for all the
tests were tabulated, including important points that may be used to indicate evidence of stress relaxation and
hysteresis. The frame and computer were shut down after saving all relevant data.
Table 5. Viscoelastic Sample Results, generated and calculated. ‘E1’ & ‘E2’ refer to extension endpoint pairs 1
and 2 for each material, respectively, and ‘S1’ & ‘S2’ refer to test speeds 1 & 2 for each material, respectively.
Material Modulus Compressive Yield Strength Ultimate Strain Failure strain failure stress
Units MPa MPa (mm/mm) (mm/mm) MPa
Cortical Bone 599.392 12.73 0.36 0.36 19.5
Whole Bone 287.946 8.404 0.098 0.184 7.326
Trabecular Bone 5.476 0.15 N/A N/A N/A
Material Modulus Compressive Yield Strength Ultimate Strain Failure strain Failure stress
Units MPa MPa (mm/mm) (mm/mm) MPa
Cortical Bone 188.909 12.723 0.5976 0.5976 19.512
Whole Bone 86.543 3.436 0.0984 0.1877 5.9199
Trabecular Bone 1.658 0.151 N/A N/A N/A
Figure 4. Cortical bone failure stress-strain curve with labeled points generated by TestWorks. The cortical
bone had a highly irregular stress strain curve with poorly defined deformation regions. The true ‘failure’ point
was likely reached well before 0.59 strain (incorrectly displayed on this graph because of an incorrectly entered
gage length), as the cortical bone was crushed to a pulp with a length only a fraction of its initial gage length,
exhibited a more familiarly shaped stress-strain curve, with a well-defined yield point, followed by the ultimate
stress around 14.5MPa, followed by a large range of plastic deformation, with failure of the sample manifested
physically by fracture of the bone near one of the heads. The bone was not completely crushed, unlike cortical
bone, because the shape of the bone was initially already bent, which caused the loading to be part axial and
was calculated by TestWorks in the region immediately preceding 10% strain (slope of the yellow line). The
entire region exhibited elastic deformation, with the yield stress conjectured to be at 10% strain as per the 10%
offset strain method. The material remained in its ‘exponentially elastic’ region and returned to its initial
dimensions post-test: there was no plastic deformation nor failure of the material, and ultimate stress/strain was
not reached.
Sample Calculations
Hysteresis
Percent hysteresis is defined as the percent difference in the area under the loading/unloading curves. Each
load/unloading curve was represented with an exponential function and the area calculated by integrating the
function over the time interval over which the load was applied. Three points per curve were used to solve for
initial parameters and coefficients of each function, A, B and c, where 𝐿(𝑡) = 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵𝑡 − 1) + 𝑐. L is load in N
and t is time in seconds. ‘c’ is a necessary parameter in cases of preload or residual load from previous cycles.
𝐴
Integrating, ∫ 𝐿(𝑡) = ∫ 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵𝑡 − 1) + 𝑐 = ∫ 𝐴𝑒 𝐵𝑡 − 𝐴 + 𝑐 = ∫ 𝐴𝑒 𝐵𝑡 + (𝑐 − 𝐴) = 𝐵 𝑒 𝐵𝑡 + (𝑐 − 𝐴)𝑡
Solving for the loading curve of the second cycle of the group 1 cyclic endpoints with test speed 1, the points
taken were:
𝐴 5.928
Taking the integral from 0 to 15.33 seconds, 𝐵 𝑒 𝐵𝑡 + (𝑐 − 𝐴)𝑡|15.33
0 = .0876 𝑒 .0876𝑡 + (4.153 − 5.928)𝑡|15.33
0 =
Continuing with the above example, the unloading curve immediately following the loading curve (specifically,
cycle 2 of the group 1 cyclic extension endpoints and test speed 1) had an area of 128.02𝑁 ∗ 𝑚.
= 22.08%
Stress Relaxation
Percent stress relaxation is defined in the context of cyclic loading as the percent decrease of the peak load from
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2 −𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 5
the 1st cycle to the 5th cycle. Therefore, % 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ .
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2
Example: In the specimen with the group 1 cyclic extension endpoints and test speed 1,
Peak Stress
Peak stress equals the peak load over cross sectional area. Continuing with specimen 1 (same as above):
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 21.394𝑁
𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = = = 32246.98𝑃𝑎 = 32.25𝐾𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 6.634 ∗ 10−4 𝑚2
Stress Relaxation
Percent stress relaxation is defined in the context of constant strain loading as the percent decrease of induced
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 −𝐿𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙
load from the initial value to the final value. Therefore, % 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙
Example: In compressive stress relaxation specimen 1 (group 1 extension endpoints, test speed 1),
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 13.997𝑁 & 𝐿𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 9.256𝑁
Peak Stress
Peak stress equals the peak load over cross sectional area. Continuing with specimen 1 (same as above):
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 13.997𝑁
𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = = = 273822.799𝑃𝑎 = 273.823𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2
Stiffness
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
Stiffness (k) equals the yield load divided by the yield displacement; 𝑘 = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
650.6 𝑁
Therefore, 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑘 = 3.3 𝑚𝑚 = 197.151 N/mm
Energy Absorbed
Energy absorbed is defined as the area under the curve in units of 𝑁 ∗ 𝑚𝑚.
Using specialized image editing software, the area under the curve was determined and divided by a scaling
100𝑁
.
35 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 (𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)
1000𝑁∗𝑚𝑚 1000𝑁∗𝑚𝑚
Multiplied, the area scale is 2345 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠. Therefore, 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 = 52906 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 ∗ = 22,561𝑁 ∗ 𝑚𝑚
2345 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠
Verify (recalculate by hand) the properties determined by TestWorks: Modulus, Compressive Yield
is equal to compressive yield strength, so the yield strength was recalculated immediately prior to recalculating
modulus.
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝛿𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = , 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐸) =
𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
= 48.98 𝑚𝑚
650.6 𝑁 3.3 𝑚𝑚
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = = 12,727,663 𝑃𝑎, 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = = .0673744
5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2 48.98
12,727,663 𝑃𝑎
𝐸= = 188909496.6𝑃𝑎 = 188.909𝑀𝑃𝑎
0.0673744
Ultimate Strain
𝛿
Ultimate strain is equal to ultimate elongation divided by gage length. 𝜀𝑈𝐿𝑇 = 𝐿 𝑈𝐿𝑇 , at the point where 𝜎𝑈𝐿𝑇 is
𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒
reached.
29.27 𝑚𝑚
𝜀𝑈𝐿𝑇 = = 0.5976
48.98 𝑚𝑚
Failure Stress and Strain
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝛿𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝜎𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = , 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒
= 48.98 𝑚𝑚
997.401 29.27𝑚𝑚
𝜎𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = −5 2
= 19,512,119𝑃𝑎 = 19.512𝑀𝑃𝑎 & 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = = 0.5976
5.1117 ∗ 10 𝑚 48.98 𝑚𝑚
Discussion
Viscoelastic Evaluation
In three cases out of four, when the same extension endpoint group was used while the test speed was
increased, hysteresis, stress relaxation and peak load increased. Since the extension endpoint groups were
maintained and the comparisons were made between the same numbered cycles (in the case of hysteresis), the
observed difference must be attributed solely to the increase in strain rate. This matches our expectations that as
strain rate increases, so does the resistance of a viscoelastic material to deformation. Therefore, the modulus of
elasticity E was proportional to the strain rate, as were the characteristic phenomena associated with viscoelastic
When the same test speed was maintained but the longer extension endpoint was increased, in all
comparisons both peak stress and hysteresis increased. In three cases out of four, with a doubling of the
extension endpoint distance, the stress exhibited a greater than twofold increase. This is markedly different from
the behavior of artificial viscoelastic materials such as polymers; however, this is in line with models for
biological viscoelastic materials where the stress strain relationship is best modeled by an exponential function.
An exponential function predicted, and we observed, an exponential increase in induced stress with an increase
in strain.
Comparison of Bone viscoelasticity with Lab 4 material viscoelasticities
Generally, bone exhibited moderately viscoelastic properties. Bone exhibited less hysteresis than did
either of the materials for which hysteresis was determined in lab 4, which were aluminum and nylon. An
interesting comparison might have been made between the hysteresis of polyethylene and that of bone, but
polyethylene was only tested in stress relaxation in lab 4. Bone exhibited half as much percent stress relaxation
in cyclic loading as did nylon, but it exhibited more than did aluminum in cyclic loading. In stress relaxation
(60s hold time) testing, bone exhibited much more percent stress relaxation than did steel or Douglas fir, but
exhibited slightly less percent stress relaxation than did polyethylene. Therefore, bone was characterized by
Density was indicative of the actual cross-sectional area of the trabecular bone. It had an order of
magnitude greater apparent or measurable cross-sectional area compared to the cortical and whole bone
samples; however the actual cross-sectional area must have been much smaller since the sample had a porous
structure composed of polyurethane (which simulates trabecular bone). The actual cross-sectional area was
unmeasurable but it is reflected somewhat in the much lower density. The density is lower because of the pores
in the structure as the holes contribute nothing to measured mass – in fact, the holes lack mass. The mechanical
properties of trabecular bone are likewise affected by the porosity of the structure. The holes do not offer
resistance to compression; rather they are areas lacking resistance to compression. The lower modulus of
elasticity implies that the material deforms easily assuming its cross-sectional area was solid, compared to other
materials which have higher moduli of elasticity. Therefore, the density is reflective of high porosity which
decreases the apparent moduli, as well as the yield strength of the sample.
Trabecular bone had lesser percent stress relaxation over five cycles of loading, compared to the percent
stress relaxation exhibited by cortical bone over the 60 second hold time of the stress relaxation tests. This
suggests that the trabecular bone stayed within a small range of its linearly elastic region or that it was in
general more elastic than cortical bone. Trabecular bone exhibited significant hysteresis of 20% or more in all
In cyclical compression of cortical bone, percent hysteresis increased when the extension (compression)
endpoints were increased, which correlates with a material moving further out of its linearly elastic region.
However, increasing the test speed had mixed results with respect to the observed percent hysteresis. In one
case the observed percent hysteresis increased when the test speed was increased, but in another case the
observed percent hysteresis decreased when the test speed was increased.
Failure Evaluation
Cortical bone is the component that covers the outer portion of the bone while trabecular bone is found
in the inner portion of bone. The porous characteristic of trabecular bone plays a role in its behavior during
failure. With an increase in porosity, the cross-sectional area of the specimen would decrease. Trabecular bone
is much more porous than cortical bone, and depending on the apparent area of the material specimens, different
data would be determined as a result of these structures. The material’s dimensional measurements show that
trabecular bone is much less dense compared to cortical bone, thus, cortical bone is much more resistant to
undergoing deformation. This resistance to deformation is also shown in data from Table 6 when looking at
Elastic Modulus. Table 6 shows us that cortical bone has a higher Modulus, thus exhibiting a high resistance to
uniaxial compression. In comparison, trabecular bone has a lower elastic modulus and displays a lower
resistance. The values of stiffness obtained from the failure test shown in Table 6 show that trabecular bone is
less stiff than cortical bone and is thus more elastic. The apparent surface area of trabecular bone is much higher
in comparison to cortical bone, thus, the ultimate stress is much less than that of cortical bone with the same
applied load. This provides us with information proving that trabecular bone is weaker than cortical bone. The
energy absoroption before failure is shown to be much higher in cortical bone than in trabecular bone. This
value takes into account the load and deformation applied at various points along the curve before failure.
Comparison of determined properties with that in the literature, both for biological bone and
polyurethane. Manufacturer specifications for the simulated bone are: trabecular – Young’s modulus
Literature.
In comparison between the determined properties and properties in literature for cortical bone the values are
dissimilar by a factor of around 10 for compressive strength and 100 for Young’s modulus. Whole bone is also
much different in comparison of elastic moduli between the experimental and theoretical values obtained.
Trabecular bones comparison was also different since the apparent surface area will affect calculations for stress
and modulus because the area from the experimental test is much bigger than the actual area so the calculated
values for the stress and moduli will be different than the actual values. The theoretical values obtained for
these material properties may be subjected to error depending on the mode of material analysis. For example,
depending on the method undertaken to determine the material properties of the bone (e.g. nanoindentation,
strength and compressive modulus, respectively: whole bone, trabecular bone, cortical bone, steel, aluminum,
polyethylene, nylon, Douglas fir, PMMA, titanium alloy, and cobalt-chromium alloy. While strong metals may
have varying compressive versus tensile elastic moduli and yield strengths, their differences are within a five
percent difference range. However, polymeric materials have greater potential to behave differently in
compression as opposed to tension, so mechanical properties obtained from compression may have substantial
differences (over the five percent difference range) to properties obtained from tension.
In comparison between the three constructs of bone used, cortical bone exhibited the highest
compressive yield strength and the highest compressive modulus (refer to Table 8). This was due to the
absence of the epiphyses bone sections that have been cut off prior to testing. The physical properties of bone
marrow in which it was exposed under compression, constitutes a sponge-like consistency. Its composition,
which mainly includes red and white blood cells and fat, suggests that it would not be able to deform in the
elastic region compared to whole bone (AZoM, 2001). The whole bone in this case had a lower compressive
modulus due to intact epiphysis bone sections (distal and proximal sections of the bone oriented longitudinally);
bone at both ends constitutes cancellous bone, which exhibits ductility to allow bending, thus decreasing its
Comparing the compressive yield strength to the properties of the five materials that were previously
tested and to three candidates for total joint arthroplasty, all three bone constructs had the smallest values. In
contrast, the titanium and cobalt-chromium alloys show that they would be best in resisting tension. Their high
values for compressive modulus would suggest that they would exhibit elasticity more so than would the
viscoelastic bone, suggesting that they would be less flexible in terms of the loads that are borne under activities
of daily living (Wayne, 2015); In contrast, the lower values for bone compressive modulus represent an ability
to exhibit flexibility under these living conditions. Strictly speaking, it would seem that materials such as nylon
and the cobalt-chromium alloy would be more suitable as materials to be used in artificial hip joints, but one
should be au fait regarding the possible factors such as metal corrosion, biocompatibility, and ability of the
bone to heal. This further suggests that these material properties may affect the mechanical properties of bone
replacements, and therefore may hinder their effectiveness for use in patients who require total joint
arthroplasty. Stress shielding is also a necessary consideration when considering possible resorption of bone in
According to Figure 5, a small region of the compressive stiffness in the Load vs Deformation curve was
present. This represented elastic deformation; the portion of the curve succeeding the linear region suggests
that that the bone is then deforming plastically, with the whole bone undergoing strain hardening to reach the
ultimate load. At the point where the ultimate load is reached, the material achieves ultimate deformation.
Following the ultimate load and elongation, shearing is exhibited and the mechanical properties become
compromised, as the bone is on the verge of failure, since the compression begins to mostly bend the head of
the bone relative to the longitudinal axis as opposed to pure uniaxial compression.
Error
This experiment was considerably more complex than previous ones, entailing a mixture of cyclic, stress
relaxation and failure testing of several different samples. The heterogeneity of the material samples presented
difficulties in conducting the experiment and some errors were either made unintentionally or were
unavoidable. One simple error made was the incorrect gage length being entered into the failure test for cortical
bone – the gage length for whole bone was entered in that case, and this ultimately resulted in incorrect
TestWorks strain (such as yield strain, ultimate strain, etc.). A second error encountered was the offset position
of the cortical and whole bone with respect to the loading grips (which compressed the samples). What ended
up occurring in the course of the experiment was the bending, and then shearing, of the samples, which
Yet another error was the difficulty in obtaining representative dimensions for the tested samples. The
bone shapes were highly irregular, and while we attempted to use calipers to measure the dimensions, some
dimensions were measured incorrectly, and it is highly likely that the reported area for the cortical bone only
has a small portion actually completely composed of cortical bone – this is likely a large factor in the extremely
small modulus and yield stress reported for cortical bone in this experiment relative to theoretical values. Other
errors included the minor and major radii varying along the length of the bone, the internal radii of the whole
bone being unexposed and unmeasurable with our tools, and the mass of the bone marrow being included when
taking the mass of the cortical and whole bone samples, which makes the calculated bone densities for both
Another interesting ‘error’ encountered in this lab was the discrepancy between experimentally
determined and theoretical values for trabecular bone. This is likely due to our inability to obtain the true cross-
sectional area; the apparent cross-sectional area of the trabecular bone sample is likely highly inflated compared
to what the true cross-sectional area is. The cross-sectional area is a critical value that is used in determining the
yield stress and modulus of elasticity of the trabecular bone. If this cross-sectional area is ‘inflated’ by our
inability to subtract out the area of the pores – as was the case in this lab – then one would expect the measured
yield stress and modulus of elasticity to be lower than their true values, and in fact they were to a misleadingly
large extent. In addition, the random orientation of the trabecular pores with respect to the loading face calls
into question whether the sample was truly being compressed uniaxially. In order to ensure pure uniaxial
compression, the pores should be all longitudinally oriented parallel to the direction of loading. However, in the
sample tested the arrangement was random and each strand within the mesh of polyurethane was loaded in a
combination of longitudinal and transverse loading, depending on the individual strand’s orientation relative to
the direction of compression. Both the inability to measure the true cross-sectional area, as well as the
heterogeneity of the orientation of strands within the trabecular structure, mean that the conditions needed to
ensure the preciseness of the measured modulus and yield stress were likely not met.
Finally, there was a discrepancy in calculating compressive modulus between the method utilized by
TestWorks and the one utilized in hand-calculation. TestWorks used the slope of the graph in the section
immediately preceding the 10% strain point in order to calculate the compressive modulus; the hand-calculation
method divided yield stress by yield strain, but which is inaccurate when trying to calculate the slope of an
exponential function. The portion of the curve immediately preceding 10% strain is likely more representative
of the mechanical behavior, so the method based on using the available yield stress/strain is not ideal. The result
is a lower compressive modulus calculated by hand compared to that calculated by TestWorks, with the latter
Conclusion
The experiment included a wide variety of testing methods, with data analyses making an equally broad
variety of comparisons on the basis of material type, strain rate and strain amount. While only three materials
were tested directly in this lab, the obtained characteristic mechanical properties were compared to both
theoretical values for those same materials, as well as analogous mechanical properties of a wide variety of both
previously tested materials and common implant materials. Another important category of comparisons were
made based on viscoelastic properties, between how bone and bone analogues exhibited those properties, and
how previously tested materials (in lab 4) exhibited those viscoelastic properties, which included stress
relaxation and hysteresis. Finally, the effect of changing either of the independent variables (elongation
endpoints or test speed) was discussed, particularly on the change in viscoelastic behavior.
Following failure testing of the three materials in compression, important points and characteristic properties
were tabulated and recalculated, with an emphasis on understanding the assumptions and underlying theoretical
properties defining the mechanical behavior of bone samples. While the heterogeneity of the samples tested
presented a challenge in conducting the experiment, the results still followed the expected trend, with
trabecular, whole and cortical bone exhibiting increasing compressive moduli and yield stress, respectively.
References
[1] Wayne, J. S. "Biomedical Engineering EGRB 310: Biomechanics Lab #6 – Compression Behavior of
[2] Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, The mechanical properties of biological materials, 1980,
[3] Mow, V. C., and Hayes, W.C., Typical stress-strain curves for bone of different apparent densities, 1997,
Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.
[4] Dong, X. N., Orientation dependence of progressive post-yield behavior of human cortical bone in
[5] Mechanical properties of bone. University of Cambridge, © 2015. Accessed 11-14-15; Available from:
http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/bones/bone_mechanical.php
[6] Silva, M., et al., Nanoindentation and whole-bone bending estimates of material properties in bones from the
senescence accelerated mouse SAMP6. Journal of Biomechanics, 2004. 37(11): pp. 1639-1646.
[7] Langton, C.M., The Physical Measurement of Bone., 2004, Institute of Physics Publishing. p. 144
https://en.wikipedia.org
[10] Tensile Test. Engineering Archives, © 2012. Accessed 10-24-15; Available from:
http://www.engineeringarchives.com
[11] Aluminum 6061-T6. MatWeb LLC, © 2015. Accessed 10-25-15; Available from:
http://asm.matweb.com
[12] Modulus of Elasticity or Young’s Modulus. The Engineering ToolBox, © 2015. Accessed
[13] AISI 1018 Steel. MatWeb LLC, © 2015. Accessed 10-25-15; Available from:
http://www.matweb.com
[14] Douglas-Fir. Eric Meier, © 2015. Accessed 10-25-15; Available from: http://www.wood-
database.com
[15] Compressive Strength Testing of Plastics. Matweb, LLC, © 2015. Accessed 11-14-15; Available from:
http://www.matweb.com
[16]Acharya, S. and Mukhopadhyay, A.K., High strain rate compressive behavior of PMMA. Polymer Bulletin,
[17] Polymethylmethacrylate/ PMMA. Roger D. Corneliussen, © 2002. Accessed 11-14-15; Available from:
http://www.maropolymeronline.com
[18] Common Material Properties. ENGINEERING.com, Inc., © 2015. Accessed 11-14-15; Available from:
http://www.engineering.com
[19] Material Specification. EOS, © 2015. Accessed 11-14-15; Available from: http://www.3trpd.co.uk
[20] What is Bone Marrow. AZoM, © 2001. Accessed 11-14-15; Available from: http://www.news-medical.net