BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING

VCU School of Engineering

EGRB 310: BIOMECHANICS – 001

Laboratory No./ Date Biomechanics Lab #6 - Experiment Date: 11/9/2015 - LAB: Monday –
Due Date: 11/16/15

Experiment Title An Assessment of the Compressive Behavior of Bone in Cyclic

Lab Partner’s Names
Loading and Stress Relaxation Scenarios.
Zachary Siou – Rotated among stations during the lab experiment. For
the lab report, Zachary completed elements 5 and 6 (Theory and
Procedure) and also contributed to the other sections of the assignment.
Zachary also worked on sections 8-10 with the entire team.

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.

Ashkhan Hojati – Rotated among stations during the lab experiment.

For the lab report Ashkhan completed elements 1-4 (Title & Author
Page, Abstract, Objective, and Nomenclature) and also contributed to
the other sections of the assignment. Ashkhan also worked on sections
8-10 with the entire team.
“On our honors, we have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this assignment. Our signatures attest
that each lab partner within our group contributed equally to and is well versed in all parts of this report.”

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

“Multicycle Compression to Displacement Points” and “Compression-noExt-GageAdj” specific to sample

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

in lab 4 and common prosthetic materials.

Nomenclature:

 Do = outer diameter (mm)

 Di = inner diameter (mm)

 g = gram (mass)

 g/cc = apparent density

 l = length (mm)

 mm = millimeter (distance, 10-3 meters)

 mm2 = square millimeter (cross-sectional area)

  mm3 = cubic millimeter (volume)

 MPa = megapascal (Pressure, 106 N/m2)

 N = newton (force, N)

 N-mm = energy absorbed

 Uh, MJ/m3 = Hysteresis Energy

 t = thickness (mm)

 s = second (time)

 w = width (mm)

 ε = strain (dimensionless)

 εi = instantaneous Strain

 σ = stress (pressure, MPa)

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

diagram representing bone structure:

Material behavior in compression regardless of bone type is characterized by its mechanical properties as well

as other properties that may affect its mechanical behavior, such as the age of the bone, corrosion, and the rate

of strain being applied to the bone.

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

longevity of the bone before failure:

When the bone is placed under compression to failure, it can be hypothesized that a denser bone is more

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-

Strain graphs), where A and B define parameters of the material:

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

the grocery store.

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

taken to determine the average:

Table 1. Measured Material dimensions and Critical Values

Width/ Thickness Inner
Inner /Outer Major Outer Cross-
Material Gage Minor Minor Diamet Major Sectional
Trial # Length Diameter Diameter er Diameter Length Area Volume Mass Density
Units (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm3) (g) (g/cc)
Trabecular
N/A N/A
(#1) 37.28 25.34 26.12 34.4 661.8808 22768.7 2.78 0.1221
(#2) 36.23 25.86 25.79 N/A N/A 34.69 666.9294 23135.8 0.1202
(#3) 35.58 25.68 25.76 N/A N/A 34.97 661.5168 23133.2 0.1202
Average 36.363 25.626 25.89 N/A N/A 34.687 663.442 23012.6 0.121
Cortical
(#1) 50.81 7.2 9.84 10.59 14.27 52.39 50.398 2640.35 8.43 3.193
(#2) 47.16 7.17 9.99 10.62 14.17 52.52 51.3751 2698.22 3.1243
(#3) 48.98 7.26 10.06 10.52 14.12 52.62 51.5787 2714.07 3.106
Average 48.983 7.21 9.9633 10.58 14.1867 52.51 51.117 2684.22 3.1410
Whole
N/A N/A 3.147
Bone (#1) 81.2 8.629 10.21 80.65 69.195 5580.59 17.56
(#2) 80.49 N/A 8.58 N/A 10.23 80.5 68.937 5549.43 3.164
(#3) 80.43 N/A 8.62 N/A 10.18 80.86 68.9199 5572.87 3.151
Average 80.707 N/A 8.6097 N/A 10.207 80.67 69.0174 5567.63 3.154
 The load cell and crosshead displacement were then zeroed. Platens were attached depending on the

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.

Results – Tables, Graphs and Figures

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/ Peak Valley Peak Peak Stress Hysteresis Hysteresis Stress

Test Load Load/ Stress Strain Relaxation in 2nd in 5th Relaxation
5th peak Peak of 1st cycle cycle Peak to
to 5th cycle End
Units (N) (N) (MPa) (mm/mm) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Trabecular
21.4 20.459 32.25 .01 4.370 22.083 17.268 N/A
E1, S1
Trabecular
19.2 18.078 28.92 .01 5.775 28.885 21.409 N/A
E1, S2
Trabecular
37.6 31.978 56.67 .02 14.952 28.353 25.424 N/A
E2, S1
Trabecular
54.1 49.311 81.54 .02 8.847 29.642 24.613 N/A
E2, S2
Cortical
14.0 9.256 273.8 .01 N/A N/A N/A 33.872
E1, S1
Cortical
11.1 6.944 217.9 .01 N/A N/A N/A 37.666
E1, S2
Cortical
35.7 24.366 698.8 .02 N/A N/A N/A 31.786
E2, S1
Cortical
58.2 39.498 1138 .02 N/A N/A N/A 32.141
E2, S2
Table 6. Sample results from Failure Test
Ultimate Ultimate Energy Ultimate Ultimate
Material Load Elongation Absorbed Stiffness Stress Strain Modulus
Units N mm N-mm N/mm MPa mm/mm MPa
Cortical Bone 997.401 29.27 22561.19 197.151 19.5 0.362 599.392
Whole Bone 408.571 7.942 3928.97 74.007 14.5 0.098 287.946
Trabecular
100.357 3.317 95.99 13.844 0.2 0.09 5.476
Bone

Table 7. Critical Properties, Determined by Testworks (C)

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

Table 8. Critical Properties, Re-calculated

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,

fracturing and failing several times in the process of being crushed.

Figure 5. Whole bone failure stress-strain curve with labeled points, generated by TestWorks. The whole bone

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

part shear which caused additional bending instead of uniaxial compression.

Figure 6. Trabecular bone failure stress-strain curve with labeled points, generated by TestWorks. The modulus

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

Trabecular Bone Cyclic Loading – Hysteresis, Stress Relaxation, Peak Stress

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:

(0 s, 4.153 N), (11.1 s, 13.9 N), (15.33 s, 20.931 N).

When t = 0, 4.153 = 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵(0) − 1) + 𝑐 = 𝐴(1 − 1) + 𝑐 = 𝑐. Therefore c = 4.153

16.778 𝐴(𝑒 15.33𝐵 −1)

Setting up a system of equations, 9.747 = with c being subtracted from the measured load. The
𝐴(𝑒 11.1𝐵 −1)

equation was solved using wolfram alpha. B = 0.08760

The solved value of B was substituted back to solve for A:

13.9 = 𝐴(𝑒 11.1∗0.0876 − 1) + 4.153

 9.747 = 𝐴(𝑒 .97236 − 1) = 1.6442𝐴 → 𝐴 = 5.928

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 =

67.67𝑒 .0876𝑡 − 1.775𝑡|15.33

0 = [259.187 − 27.211] − [67.67 − 0] = 231.976 − 67.67 = 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠

Therefore, the area under the loading curve is 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠.

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.

𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝐴𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠 − 128.02𝑁 ∗ 𝑠 36.386𝑁 ∗ 𝑠

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐻𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 = 100 ∗ = =
𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠

= 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,

𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2 = 21.394𝑁 & 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 5 = 20.459 𝑁

21.394 𝑁 − 20.459 𝑁 0.935 𝑁

% 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ = 100 ∗ = 4.37%
20.394 𝑁 20.394 𝑁

Peak Stress

Peak stress equals the peak load over cross sectional area. Continuing with specimen 1 (same as above):

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 = 21.394𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 663.442𝑚𝑚2 = 6.634 ∗ 10−4 𝑚2

𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 21.394𝑁
𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = = = 32246.98𝑃𝑎 = 32.25𝐾𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 6.634 ∗ 10−4 𝑚2

Cortical Bone Stress Relaxation – Stress Relaxation, Peak Stress

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

13.997𝑁 − 9.256𝑁 4.741 𝑁

% 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ = 100 ∗ = 33.87%
13.997𝑁 13.997 𝑁

Peak Stress

Peak stress equals the peak load over cross sectional area. Continuing with specimen 1 (same as above):

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 = 13.997𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 51.117𝑚𝑚2 = 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2

𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 13.997𝑁
𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = = = 273822.799𝑃𝑎 = 273.823𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2

Failure Test – Stiffness, Energy Absorbed

Stiffness
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
Stiffness (k) equals the yield load divided by the yield displacement; 𝑘 = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑

For the cortical bone, 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 650.6 𝑁 & 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 3.3 𝑚𝑚

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

factor to convert from area in pixels to area in N*mm.

10 𝑚𝑚
Example: For failure of cortical bone, 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 = 52,906 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠, with scale of 67 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 (𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ) &

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

Strength, Ultimate Strain, and Failure Stress/Strain

Modulus and Compressive Yield Strength

Modulus of elasticity in uniaxial compressive loading is the yield stress divided by the yield strain. Yield stress

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

Example: For the compressive failure of cortical bone,

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 650.6 𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙= 51.117𝑚𝑚2 = 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2 , 𝛿𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 3.3𝑚𝑚, 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒

= 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.

Example: For the compressive failure of cortical bone,

𝛿𝑈𝐿𝑇 = 29.27 𝑚𝑚 & 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 48.98 𝑚𝑚

29.27 𝑚𝑚
𝜀𝑈𝐿𝑇 = = 0.5976
48.98 𝑚𝑚
Failure Stress and Strain

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝛿𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝜎𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = , 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒

Example: For the compressive failure of cortical bone,

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 997.401 𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙= 51.117𝑚𝑚2 = 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2 , 𝛿𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 29.27𝑚𝑚, 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

Effect of different test speeds

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

materials such as hysteresis and stress relaxation.

Effect of a larger compression endpoint

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

intermediate levels of viscoelasticity.

Effect of Density on Trabecular Bone properties

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.

Comparison of trabecular and cortical bone mechanical behavior

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

cycles, characterizing the material as highly viscoelastic.

Comparison of hysteresis among differing test speeds and compression points

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

Comparison of behavior for trabecular and cortical bone

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

25.8 MPa, Compressive Yield Strength 0.85 MPa.

Material Compressive Compressive Young’s Young’s Modulus (Experimental)

Strength Strength Modulus
(literature) (Experimental) (literature)
Cortical 175 MPa 12.7 MPa 16 GPa 188.9 MPa
Bone
Whole 7 MPa 3.4 MPa 6 GPa 86.5 GPa
Bone
Trabecular 0.85 MPa 0.151 MPa 25.8 MPa 1.658 MPa
Bone
Table 9. Tabulated Comparison between Experimentally Determined Properties vs Properties found in the

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,

whole-bone bending, etc.) there may be substantial differences in values.

Comparison of behavior and properties to elastic materials tested as well as to those widely

used for total joint arthroplasty

Material Compressive Yield Compressive Modulus

Strength
(Mpa) (Gpa)
Whole Bone 3.44 0.087
Trabecular Bone 0.15 0.0017
Cortical Bone 12.72 0.188
Steel 360.91 294.63
Aluminum 324.29 67.95
Polyethylene 20 0.7
Nylon 55 2.3
Douglas Fir 81.30 13.85
PMMA 103 2.8
Titanium Alloy 825 114
Cobalt-Chrome Alloy 880 220
Table 10. Summary mechanical properties of eleven different materials in comparison of the compressive yield

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

resistance to compressive forces as it undergoes testing.

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

long-term implant outcomes.

Discussion of mechanical behavior of whole bone test from load-deformation curve

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

somewhat compromised the fidelity of the test as being solely longitudinal.

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

cortical and whole bone somewhat inflated.

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

value likely being more accurate.

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

Bone”. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

[2] Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, The mechanical properties of biological materials, 1980,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 34.

[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

compression. Journal of Biomechanics, 2012. 45(16): pp. 2829-2834.

[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

[8] Wayne, J. S. "Biomedical Engineering EGRB 310: Biomechanics Lab #4 – Viscoelastic

Behavior of Engineered Materials." Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

[9] Viscoelasticity. Geneset, © 2006. Accessed 10-24-15; Available from:

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

10-25-15; Available from: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com

[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,

2013. 71(1): pp. 133-149.

[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