The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microcracking damage and the fracture process in relation to strain rate in human cortical bone tensile failure
Open accessAbstract
It is difficult to define the 'physiological' mechanical properties of bone. Traumatic failures in-vivo are more likely to be orders of magnitude faster than the quasistatic tests usually employed in-vitro. We have reported recently [Hansen, U., Zioupos, P., Simpson, R., Currey, J.D., Hynd, D., 2008. The effect of strain rate on the mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering/Transactions of the ASME 130, 011011-1-8] results from tests on specimens of human femoral cortical bone loaded in tension at strain rates (epsilon ) ranging from low (0.08s(-1)) to high (18s(-1)). Across this strain rate range the modulus of elasticity generally increased, stress at yield and failure and strain at failure decreased for rates higher than 1s(-1), while strain at yield was invariant for most strain rates and only decreased at rates higher than 10s(-1). The results showed that strain rate has a stronger effect on post-yield deformation than on initiation of macroscopic yielding. In general, specimens loaded at high strain rates were brittle, while those loaded at low strain rates were much tougher. Here, a post-test examination of the microcracking damage reveals that microcracking was inversely related to the strain rate. Specimens loaded at low strain rates showed considerable post-yield strain and also much more microcracking. Partial correlation and regression analysis suggested that the development of post-yield strain was a function of the amount of microcracking incurred (the cause), rather than being a direct result of the strain rate (the excitation). Presumably low strain rates allow time for microcracking to develop, which increases the compliance of the specimen, making them tougher. This behaviour confirms a more general rule that the degree to which bone is brittle or tough depends on the amount of microcracking damage it is able to sustain. More importantly, the key to bone toughness is its ability to avoid a ductile-to-brittle transition for as long as possible during the deformation. The key to bone's brittleness, on the other hand, is the strain and damage localisation early on in the process, which leads to low post-yield strains and low-energy absorption to failure.
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
“Cortical bone is more brittle at high strain rates, and loading rate also has an effect on the accumulation of damage within bone tissue (2).”
From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cites
Wettability and spreading kinetics of molten aluminum on copper-coated ceramics
León-Patiño, C. A., Mendoza-Suarez, G., & Drew, R. A. L. (2006) · Journal of Materials Science · doi:10.1007/s10853-006-0443-7 · Cited by 899
In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity
Burr, D. B., Milgrom, C., Fyhrie, D. P., Forwood, M. R., Nyska, M., Finestone, A. S., Hoshaw, S. J., Saiag, E., & Simkin, A. (1996) · Bone · doi:10.1016/8756-3282(96)00028-2 · Cited by 714
Bone Compressive Strength: The Influence of Density and Strain Rate
Carter, D. R., & Hayes, W. C. (1976) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.996549 · Cited by 709
Dynamic response of bone and muscle tissue.
McElhaney, J. H. (1966) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/jappl.1966.21.4.1231 · Cited by 509
Bone Deformation Recorded in vivo from Strain Gauges Attached to the Human Tibial Shaft
Lanyon, L. E., Hampson, W. G. J., Goodship, A. E., & Shah, J. (1975) · Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica · doi:10.3109/17453677508989216 · Cited by 474
Nanoscale Deformation Mechanisms in Bone
Gupta, H. S., Wagermaier, W., Zickler, G. A., Aroush, D. R.-B., Funari, S. S., Roschger, P., Wagner, H. D., & Fratzl, P. (2005) · Nano Letters · doi:10.1021/nl051584b · Cited by 352
The extent of microcracking and the morphology of microcracks in damaged bone
Zioupos, P., & Currey, J. D. (1994) · Journal of Materials Science · doi:10.1007/bf00351420 · Cited by 246
Self-citationThe Effect of Strain Rate on the Mechanical Properties of Human Cortical Bone
Hansen, U., Zioupos, P., Simpson, R., Currey, J. D., & Hynd, D. (2008) · Journal of Biomechanical Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.2838032 · Cited by 234
Self-citationBehiri, J. C., & Bonfield, W. (1984) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/0021-9290(84)90076-9 · Cited by 203
Biomimetics. Design and Processing of Materials.
Sarıkaya, M., & Aksay, İ. A. (1995) · AIP Press eBooks · Cited by 199
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hynd, D., Willis, C., Roberts, A., Lowne, R., Hopcroft, R., Manning, P., Wallace, W.A., 2003. The development of an injury criterion for axial loading to the THOR-LX based on PMHS testing. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Paper 078. Nagoya, Japan.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bone 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
“Cortical bone is more brittle at high strain rates, and loading rate also has an effect on the accumulation of damage within bone tissue (2).”
Deformation and Fracture Mechanisms of Bone and Nacre
Wang, R., & Gupta, H. S. (2011) · Annual Review of Materials Research · doi:10.1146/annurev-matsci-062910-095806 · Cited by 238
Allen, M. R., & Burr, D. B. (2011) · Bone · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2010.10.159 · Cited by 219
Schwiedrzik, J., Raghavan, R., Bürki, A., LeNader, V., Wolfram, U., Michler, J., & Zysset, P. (2014) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/nmat3959 · Cited by 182
Zimmermann, E. A., Gludovatz, B., Schaible, E., Busse, B., & Ritchie, R. O. (2014) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.066 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- Zioupos, P., Hansen, U., & Currey, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Cranfield University (GB)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zioupos, Peter
- ORCID
- Zioupos, Peter
- Venue
- Journal of Biomechanics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 2932-2939
- ISSN
- 0021-9290 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2054199016
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 9.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Biomechanics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Cranfield University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
- Keywords
- cortical bone, strain rate sensitivity, microcracking, fracture process, tensile failure, bone toughness, ductile-to-brittle transition, energy absorption, femoral bone, damage localization, bone mechanical properties
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Femur, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Stress, Mechanical, Tensile Strength, Elastic Modulus, In Vitro Techniques
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
