Cited by 57Bone health and osteoporosis researchBone fractures and treatmentsFatigue and fracture mechanics

Local strain and damage mapping in single trabeculae during three-point bending tests

Open access
Jungmann, R., Szabo, M.E., Schitter, G., Yue-Sing Tang, Raymond, Vashishth, D., Hansma, P.K., Thurner, P.J.·2011·Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

Abstract

The use of bone mineral density as a surrogate to diagnose bone fracture risk in individuals is of limited value. However, there is growing evidence that information on trabecular microarchitecture can improve the assessment of fracture risk. One current strategy is to exploit finite element analysis (FEA) applied to 3D image data of several mm-sized trabecular bone structures obtained from non-invasive imaging modalities for the prediction of apparent mechanical properties. However, there is a lack of FE damage models, based on solid experimental facts, which are needed to validate such approaches and to provide criteria marking elastic-plastic deformation transitions as well as microdamage initiation and accumulation. In this communication, we present a strategy that could elegantly lead to future damage models for FEA: direct measurements of local strains involved in microdamage initiation and plastic deformation in single trabeculae. We use digital image correlation to link stress whitening in bone, reported to be correlated to microdamage, to quantitative local strain values. Our results show that the whitening zones, i.e. damage formation, in the presented loading case of a three-point bending test correlate best with areas of elevated tensile strains oriented parallel to the long axis of the samples. The average local strains along this axis were determined to be (1.6±0.9)% at whitening onset and (12±4)% just prior to failure. Overall, our data suggest that damage initiation in trabecular bone is asymmetric in tension and compression, with failure originating and propagating over a large range of tensile strains.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.12.009

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Microdamage initiation occurs at tissue-level strains of approximately 1.6% and differs in compression versus tension.

    “Measurements of tissue-level deformations via digital image correlation applied to bending tests of single trabeculae indicate that microdamage initiation occurs at tissue-level strains of approximately 1.6% and differs in compression versus tension (108); however, estimates from finite element (FE) models suggest that the threshold for damage initiation is lower (107).”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [108]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jungmann, R., Szabo, M. E., Schitter, G., Yue-Sing Tang, R., Vashishth, D., Hansma, P. K., & Thurner, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • TU Wien (AT)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Thurner, P.J.
Venue
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
523-534
ISSN
1751-6161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007227307
Cited by
57
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials/Journal of mechanical behavior of biomedical materials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (111445)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM065354)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (AR49635, R01AR049635)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Fatigue and fracture mechanics
Keywords
trabecular bone, microdamage, local strain, three-point bending, stress whitening, digital image correlation, fracture risk assessment, damage initiation, tensile strain, plastic deformation, trabecular bone microarchitecture
MeSH terms
Animals, Bone and Bones, Cattle, Materials Testing, Photography, Plastics, Stress, Mechanical, Finite Element Analysis, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Optical Phenomena

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