Anda di halaman 1dari 35

Relationships Among Microstructural Features and Crack Propagation in Osteonal Bone Identified Using Finite Element Analysis

Erin K. Oneida, Marjolein C.H. van der Meulen, Anthony R. Ingraffea Cornell University Ithaca, NY
12th International Conference on Fracture Ottawa, Canada July 12-17, 2009

Outline Motivation Review Objective Research Procedure


Crack Propagating Around Microstructural Feature

Results
Discussion
(Mohsin et al., 2006)

Acknowledgements
2

Motivation
Each year, 2 million Americans over age 50 suffer a skeletal fracture1

Increased mortality2 Related financial costs of more than $17 billion1

Understanding relationships among geometry, material properties, and damage propagation could explain fracture risk and provide direction for preventative treatment development
3 1. Burge et al., 2007 2. Center et al., 1999

Bone: Complex, Hierarchical Material


Cross-section of cortical bone microstructure
Lamella Haversian Canal

Cancellous Bone

Cortical Bone

Osteon

Interstitial Bone

10-500 m

3-7 m

Femur (cm)
Osteon Cement Line

150 m

Einterstitial > Eosteonal

Haversian Canal
4

(Rho et al., 1998 and Rho et al., 2002)

Fracture Events at Different Length Scales

Atomic Separation1 (angstrom) Crack in Humerus2 (m)

Crack Around Osteon3 (mm)


Femoral Fracture4 (cm)
5

1. Abraham et al., 1998 2. Nalla et al., 2003 3. Mohsin et al., 2006 4. Perren, 2002

Crack Propagation Affected by Microsctructure


Response upon encountering an osteon depends on crack length (Mohsin et al., 2006) : 100 m or less = stopped at cement lines 100-300 m = deflected at cement lines 400 m = able to penetrate cement lines

Osteon Osteon
100 m

(Koester et al., 2008)

Objective
To use computational modeling together with detailed experimental data to identify the relationships among microstructural features and damage evolution in cortical bone

+
FE Model Experimental Data

Explain?

100 m

Crack Propagation Behavior at the Microscale 7

Research Plan Overview


Develop Representative Finite Element Models Incorporate Damage Propagate Damage According to Specific Criteria Identify Relationships Among Geometry, Material Properties, and Damage Evolution
8

From Data to Digital Bone


Developed code for automatic generation of cortical microstructure
INPUT: Osteon Geometry: Radii: Outer, Haversian canal, lamellar layer Material Properties: Different elastic moduli for each region And More: Porosity, osteon percent area Experimental Data Finite Element Model

(Rho et al., 2002)


9

Examples of Generated Digital Bone


1 2

10

Microstructure Parameters of Interest


Geometry:
Porosity Haversian Canal Diameter Osteon Diameter Osteon % Area

Material Properties:
Einterstitial Eosteonal
Osteon Haversian Canal Interstitial Bone
Model and mesh generated in a few min. on desktop computer
11

1 mm

Applied Boundary Conditions


Plane Displaced 0.005 mm

1 mm

0.0625 mm thick
12

Research Plan Overview


Develop Representative Finite Element Models Incorporate Damage Propagate Damage According to Specific Criteria Identify Relationships Among Geometry, Material Properties, and Damage Evolution
13

Damage Incorporation Example


Penny-shaped crack template (radius = 0.06 mm) inserted using FRANC3D/NG (finite element-based fracture mechanics software developed in-house) Crack explicitly represented as a geometric discontinuity and adaptive re-meshing employed

Crack Template

14

Damage Incorporation Example


Penny-shaped crack template (radius = 0.06 mm) inserted using FRANC3D/NG (finite element-based fracture mechanics software developed in-house) Crack explicitly represented as a geometric discontinuity and adaptive re-meshing employed

15

Damage Incorporation Example


Penny-shaped crack template (radius = 0.06 mm) inserted using FRANC3D/NG (finite element-based fracture mechanics software developed in-house) Crack explicitly represented as a geometric discontinuity and adaptive re-meshing employed

Deformed View

16

Research Plan Overview


Develop Representative Finite Element Models Incorporate Damage Propagate Damage According to Specific Criteria Identify Relationships Among Geometry, Material Properties, and Damage Evolution
17

Damage Propagation Framework


IN: Model with Initial Crack

Finite Element Analysis

Compute Parameters of Interest e.g., Stress Intensity Factors (KI, KII, KIII)

YES NO Repeat Crack Growth? Grow Crack Front According to Chosen Growth Rule e.g., Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics:

OUT: Model with Grown Crack

Automatic Re-meshing

th at i Point K Ii : Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at ith Point

ai: Increment of Crack Growth

K ai a given K mean
i I
18

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Initial Crack


19

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 1 Step


20

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 3 Steps


21

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 2 Steps


22

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 4 Steps


23

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 5 Steps


24

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 6 Steps


25

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

crk8

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 7 Steps


26

Crack Growth Illustration


Uniform Applied Displacement (1 m) 33, MPa
(Avg: 75%)
+1.112e+03 +5.000e+02 +4.417e+02 +3.833e+02 +3.250e+02 +2.667e+02 +2.083e+02 +1.500e+02 +9.167e+01 +3.333e+01 -2.500e+01 -8.333e+01 -1.417e+02 -2.000e+02 -2.695e+02

0.135 mm

Edge View (Deformation Scale Factor = 10) Crack Grown 8 Steps


27

Research Plan Overview


Develop Representative Finite Element Models Incorporate Damage Propagate Damage According to Specific Criteria Identify Relationships Among Geometry, Material Properties, and Damage Evolution
28

Parameter Study: 3 Variations


Model #1 (Reference Model)
Geometry Porosity1: Haversian Canal Diameter2: Osteon Diameter3: Osteon % Area1: Material Properties Einterstitial1: 25 GPa Eosteonal: 25 GPa 5.5% 58.8 m 246.8 m 41.0 %

Model #2 (Vary Materials)


Geometry Porosity: Haversian Canal Diameter: Osteon Diameter: Osteon % Area: Material Properties Einterstitial: 25 GPa Eosteonal: 12.5 GPa 1. Rho et al., 2002 2. Wang and Ni, 2003 3. Wachter et al., 2002 5.5% 58.8 m 246.8 m 41.0%

Model #3 (Vary Geometry)


Geometry Porosity: Haversian Canal Diameter: Osteon Diameter: Osteon % Area: Material Properties Einterstitial: 25 GPa Eosteonal: 25 GPa
29

12.7% 117.6 m 246.8 m 41.0%

Parameter Study: 3 Variations


Model #1 (Reference Model)

Model #2 (Vary Materials)

Model #3 (Vary Geometry)

30

Parameter Study: Methods Overview


Generate Model Apply BCs Insert Crack FE Analysis

31

Grow Crack

Results: Crack Front After 1 Growth Step


Interstitial Bone Model #2 Crack Front Osteonal Bone

Osteon

Original Crack Front


Y Coordinate (mm)

Canal (Models #1 and #2) Canal (Model #3) Model #1 Crack Front --Model #3 Crack Front

Crack
Outer Boundary

X Coordinate (mm)

32

Discussion of Results
Variation in crack front growth apparent between Models #1 and #2
-When inside an osteon, crack grew less when modulus was lower

Same crack front growth observed in Models #1 and #3


-Due to loading conditions and crack location, different radius had no effect

Cracks behaved as expected in all models for given loading scenario Future Studies will explore: Additional variations in material properties and geometry apparent at the microscale
Different crack growth formulations (e.g., cohesive zone modeling) Variations in crack orientation, size, and number of cracks Different loading scenarios

Ultimately, developed modeling capabilities will be validated using experimental data related to crack growth at the microscale 33

Overall Discussion
Modeling framework created and used to study crack propagation in bone at the microscale:

Model generation tool allowed for quick creation of variable digital models of bone Cracks were successfully inserted and grown according to chosen criteria Small parametric study allowed for investigation of effects of material property and geometry variations on crack growth
With basic tools in place, a broader parametric investigation can be performed in the future

34

Acknowledgements
Thanks for financial support: Ross-Tetelman Fellowship Cornell Center for Materials Research (NSF DMR 0089992) NIH Grant AR 053571 Thanks for technical assistance: Dr. Bruce Carter Dr. Paul Wawryznek Cornell Fracture Group Members Thank-you for your time!
35