Cited by 107Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanismsAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlComparative Animal Anatomy Studies

Flexural stiffness of feather shafts: geometry rules over material properties

Bachmann, Thomas, Emmerlich, Jens, Baumgartner, Werner, Schneider, Jochen M., Wagner, Hermann·2012·Journal of Experimental Biology

Abstract

Flight feathers of birds interact with the flow field during flight. They bend and twist under aerodynamic loads. Two parameters are mainly responsible for flexibility in feathers: the elastic modulus (Young's modulus, E) of the material (keratin) and the geometry of the rachises, more precisely the second moment of area (I). Two independent methods were employed to determine Young's modulus of feather rachis keratin. Moreover, the second moment of area and the bending stiffness of feather shafts from fifth primaries of barn owls (Tyto alba) and pigeons (Columba livia) were calculated. These species of birds are of comparable body mass but differ in wing size and flight style. Whether their feather material (keratin) underwent an adaptation in stiffness was previously unknown. This study shows that no significant variation in Young's modulus between the two species exists. However, differences in Young's modulus between proximal and distal feather regions were found in both species. Cross-sections of pigeon rachises were particularly well developed and rich in structural elements, exemplified by dorsal ridges and a well-pronounced transversal septum. In contrast, cross-sections of barn owl rachises were less profiled but had a higher second moment of area. Consequently, the calculated bending stiffness (EI) was higher in barn owls as well. The results show that flexural stiffness is predominantly influenced by the geometry of the feathers rather than by local material properties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1242/jeb.059451

Cites

37 of 37 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bachmann, T., Emmerlich, J., Baumgartner, W., Schneider, J. M., & Wagner, H.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
  • Institute for Biology II, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Strasse 15, 52074 Aachen, Germany
Corresponding author
Bachmann, Thomas
Venue
Journal of Experimental Biology
Published
2012-02-01
Volume
215
Issue
3
Pages
405-415
ISSN
  • 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9145
OpenAlex
W1994497159
Cited by
107
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Aeroelasticity and Vibration Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Comparative Animal Anatomy Studies
Keywords
flight feathers, bending stiffness, Young's modulus, keratin, second moment of area, barn owl, pigeons, bird flight, aerodynamic forces, cross-sectional geometry, material properties
MeSH terms
Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Feathers, Flight, Animal, Keratins, Columbidae, Wings, Animal, Pliability, Strigiformes, Elastic Modulus

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