CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 330Bone health and osteoporosis researchBone fractures and treatmentsCellular and Composite Structures

Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus

Keaveny, Tony M., Wachtel, Edward F., Ford, Catherine M., Hayes, Wilson C.·1994·Journal of Biomechanics
DOI 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90054-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The conflicting conclusions regarding the relationship between the tensile and compressive strengths of trabecular bone remain unexplained. To help resolve this issue, we compared measurements of the tensile (n = 22) and compressive (n = 22) yield strengths, and yield strains, of trabecular bone specimens taken from 38 bovine proximal tibiae. We also studied how these failure properties depended on modulus and apparent density. To enhance accuracy, trabecular orientation was controlled, and each specimen had a reduced section where strains were measured with a miniature extensometer. We found that the mean yield strength was 30% lower for tensile loading. However, the difference between individual values of the tensile and compressive strengths increased linearly with increasing modulus and density, being negligible for low moduli, but substantial for high moduli. By contrast, both the tensile and compressive yield strains were independent of modulus and density, with the yield strain being 30% lower for tensile loading. Thus, the difference between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depends on the modulus, but the difference between yield strains does not. This phenomenon may explain in part that conflicting conclusions reached previously on the tensile and compressive strengths of trabecular bone since the mean modulus has varied among different studies. Realizing that our data pertain only directly to bovine tibial trabecular bone for longitudinal loading, our results nevertheless suggest that failure parameters based on strains may provide more powerful and general comparisons of the failure properties for trabecular bone than measures based on stress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0021-9290(94)90054-x

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The strength of trabecular bone is lowest in shear.

    “As with cortical bone, the strength of trabecular bone is greater in compression than tension, and is lowest in shear, although these differences decrease with decreasing apparent density (78).”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [78]

  • The strength of trabecular bone is greater in compression than tension.

    “As with cortical bone, the strength of trabecular bone is greater in compression than tension, and is lowest in shear, although these differences decrease with decreasing apparent density (78).”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [78]

  • Differences in trabecular bone strength among loading modes decrease with decreasing apparent density.

    “As with cortical bone, the strength of trabecular bone is greater in compression than tension, and is lowest in shear, although these differences decrease with decreasing apparent density (78).”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [78]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Keaveny, T. M., Wachtel, E. F., Ford, C. M., & Hayes, W. C.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Keaveny, Tony M.
ORCID
Keaveny, Tony M.
Venue
Journal of Biomechanics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-09
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
1137-1146
ISSN
0021-9290 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0021-9290(94)90054-x
OpenAlex
W2016308888
Cited by
330
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 13
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Biomechanics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r29ar041481-05)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R29 AR41481)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Cellular and Composite Structures
Keywords
trabecular bone, tensile strength, compressive strength, yield strength, yield strain, elastic modulus, bone mineral density, bovine tibia, trabecular orientation, bone mechanical properties
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Elasticity, Regression Analysis, Stress, Mechanical, Tensile Strength, Tibia, Bone Density, Weight-Bearing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review