Cited by 46Composite Material MechanicsBone health and osteoporosis researchElasticity and Material Modeling

Evaluating the macroscopic yield behaviour of trabecular bone using a nonlinear homogenisation approach

Open access
Levrero-Florencio, Francesc, Margetts, Lee, Sales, Erika, Xie, Shuqiao, Manda, Krishnagoud, Pankaj, Pankaj·2016·Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

Abstract

Computational homogenisation approaches using high resolution images and finite element (FE) modelling have been extensively employed to evaluate the anisotropic elastic properties of trabecular bone. The aim of this study was to extend its application to characterise the macroscopic yield behaviour of trabecular bone. Twenty trabecular bone samples were scanned using a micro-computed tomography device, converted to voxelised FE meshes and subjected to 160 load cases each (to define a homogenised multiaxial yield surface which represents several possible strain combinations). Simulations were carried out using a parallel code developed in-house. The nonlinear algorithms included both geometrical and material nonlinearities. The study found that for tension-tension and compression-compression regimes in normal strain space, the yield strains have an isotropic behaviour. However, in the tension-compression quadrants, pure shear and combined normal-shear planes, the macroscopic strain norms at yield have a relatively large variation. Also, our treatment of clockwise and counter-clockwise shears as separate loading cases showed that the differences in these two directions cannot be ignored. A quadric yield surface, used to evaluate the goodness of fit, showed that an isotropic criterion adequately represents yield in strain space though errors with orthotropic and anisotropic criteria are slightly smaller. Consequently, although the isotropic yield surface presents itself as the most suitable assumption, it may not work well for all load cases. This work provides a comprehensive assessment of material symmetries of trabecular bone at the macroscale and describes in detail its macroscopic yield and its underlying microscopic mechanics.

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.2016.04.008

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Casting the yield criterion in terms of strain, rather than stress, eliminates nearly all of the dependence of the yield surface on porosity and much of its dependence on fabric.

    “As several of these studies have found, casting the yield criterion in terms of strain, rather than stress, eliminates nearly all of the dependence of the yield surface on porosity and much of its dependence on fabric.”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [123]

    The Introduction (p. 3) describes strain-space behaviour as more isotropic and density-independent than stress-space behaviour, and the Results (p. 7) find little relationship between uniaxial yield strains, BV/TV, and fabric. But the Conclusions (p. 12) report substantial variation in other loading regimes, so the claim that strain-based casting eliminates nearly all porosity dependence across the yield surface is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This barrier was subsequently overcome using numerical simulation, and there now exist several multiaxial yield criteria for trabecular bone.

    “This barrier was subsequently overcome using numerical simulation, as discussed in Section 2.2.9, below, and there now exist several multiaxial yield criteria for trabecular bone (see References 121–123 and references therein).”

    From Bone Mechanical Properties in Healthy and Diseased States (2018) · cites this paper as [123]

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

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Falcinelli, C., Schileo, E., Balistreri, L., Baruffaldi, F., Bordini, B., Viceconti, M., Albisinni, U., Ceccarelli, F., Milandri, L., Toni, A., http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-6161(1630072-8/sbref15)
  2. Kruch, S., Chaboche, J.L., 2011. Multi-scale analysis in elastoviscoplasticity coupled with damage. Int. J. Plast. 27, 2026-2039. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-6161(1630072-8/sbref29)
  3. Levrero Florencio, F., Margetts, L., Manda, K., Pankaj, P., 2015. Massively Parallel Simulations Of The Nonlinear Mechanical Behaviour of Trabecular Bone. Congress of the European Society of Biomechanics, Prague, Czech Republic. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-6161(1630072-8/sbref31)
  4. Margetts, L., Arregui, J.D., Mummery, P.M., Evans, L.M., Shterenlikht, A., Levrero Florencio, F., Pankaj, P., 2015. Recent Progress in the Massively Parallel Solution of Implicit Problems, Proceedings of the NAFEMS World Congress, San Diego, USA.
  5. Odgaard, A., Kabel, J., vanRietbergen, B., Dalstra, M., Huiskes, R., 1997. Fabric and elastic principal directions of cancellous bone are closely related. J. Biomech. 30, 487-495. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1751-6161(1630072-8/sbref43)
  6. Smith, I.M., Margetts, L., 2003. Portable parallel processing for nonlinear problems, International Conference on Computational Plasticity, Barcelona, Spain.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levrero-Florencio, F., Margetts, L., Sales, E., Xie, S., Manda, K., & Pankaj, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Levrero-Florencio, Francesc
Venue
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
61
Pages
384-396
ISSN
1751-6161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2339878253
Cited by
46
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4
FWCI
7.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials/Journal of mechanical behavior of biomedical materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Edinburgh
  • National Centre for Supercomputing Applications (e398, EP/K036939/1)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/K006029/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (HCP010)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Composite Material Mechanics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Elasticity and Material Modeling
Keywords
trabecular bone, yield criterion, material symmetry, tension-compression asymmetry, shear loading, micro-computed tomography, geometric and material nonlinearity
MeSH terms
Cancellous Bone, Biomechanical Phenomena, Humans, Stress, Mechanical, Anisotropy, Finite Element Analysis, X-Ray Microtomography

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