The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
A General Theory of Strength for Anisotropic Materials
Tsai, S. W., & Wu, E. M. (1971) · Journal of Composite Materials · doi:10.1177/002199837100500106 · Cited by 3,401
The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure
Carter, D., & Hayes, W. (1977) · The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-197759070-00021 · Cited by 2,001
Self-citationThe elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue
Reilly, D. T., & Burstein, A. H. (1975) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/0021-9290(75)90075-5 · Cited by 1,533
The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone
Gibson, L. J. (1985) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/0021-9290(85)90287-8 · Cited by 932
Mosekilde, L., Mosekilde, L., & Danielsen, C. C. (1987) · Bone · doi:10.1016/8756-3282(87)90074-3 · Cited by 492
Ciarelli, M. J., Goldstein, S. A., Kuhn, J. L., Cody, D. D., & Brown, M. B. (1991) · Journal of Orthopaedic Research · doi:10.1002/jor.1100090507 · Cited by 401
Contribution of collagen and mineral to the elastic-plastic properties of bone
Burstein, A. H., Zika, J. M., Heiple, K. G., & Klein, L. (1975) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/00004623-197557070-00013 · Cited by 391
Fracture Prediction for the Proximal Femur Using Finite Element Models: Part I—Linear Analysis
Lotz, J. C., Cheal, E. J., & Hayes, W. C. (1991) · Journal of Biomechanical Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.2895412 · Cited by 313
Self-citationThe Various Stress Patterns of Press-Fit, Ingrown, and Cemented Femoral Stems
Huiskes, R. (1990) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/00003086-199012000-00006 · Cited by 313
Physical properties of trabecular bone
Galante, J. O., Rostoker, W., & Ray, R. D. (1970) · Calcified Tissue International · doi:10.1007/bf02017552 · Cited by 302
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue
Bayraktar, H. H., Morgan, E. F., Niebur, G. L., Morris, G. E., Wong, E. K., & Keaveny, T. M. (2004) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00257-4 · Cited by 1,142
Self-citationBone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States
Morgan, E. F., Unnikrisnan, G. U., & Hussein, A. I. (2018) · Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-062117-121139 · Cited by 1,026
“Basic material properties—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).”
Biomechanics of cellular solids
Gibson, L. J. (2005) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.09.027 · Cited by 961
Biomechanics of Trabecular Bone
Keaveny, T. M., Morgan, E. F., Niebur, G. L., & Yeh, O. C. (2001) · Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev.bioeng.3.1.307 · Cited by 807
Self-citationDependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site
Morgan, E. F., & Keaveny, T. M. (2001) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00011-2 · Cited by 705
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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)
- 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
- 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 › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › 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
