Cited by 4

Forensic Fractography of Bone: Fracture Origins from Impacts, and an Improved Understanding of the Failure Mechanism Involved in Beveling

Christensen, Angi, Rickman, John, Berryman, Hugh·2021·Forensic Anthropology

Abstract

Fractography involves the study of fractures and cracks in a material in order to understand the cause of failure. Even as a complex, highly hierarchical composite, bone is a material that obeys physical laws, including cracking behavior. The fields of fractography and fracture mechanics, therefore, have much to offer in our understanding of bone’s response to loading and force. Here we discuss how fractography can be used in the assessment of fractures originating from impacts including those from projectiles. Fractures and fracture patterns frequently associated with impact trauma—including radial fractures, circumferential fractures, and beveling—are described and used interpretively in forensic analyses; however, the mechanisms for their production and arrangement are often underutilized in fully understanding the trauma event. These mechanisms are reviewed here from a fractography perspective. Furthermore, a review is presented of new data indicating that beveling in bone associated with impacts, especially with projectiles, is produced by cone cracking, a process that is also well documented in other brittle materials. This information can be used to enhance understanding of impact trauma in general, as well as in the context of specific forensic cases. Moreover, describing and interpreting skeletal trauma within the context of fracture mechanics and fractography has the advantage of aligning the nomenclature used in forensic anthropology with that used in other scientific fields, particularly those involved in the study of material failure. To facilitate this alignment, we provide discussion and definitions for various fractography-related terms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5744/fa.2020.0041

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • In BFT, bones are stronger in compression, with the tension side being the weakest and failing first.

    “These findings are in agreement with the fact that in BFT we see bending where bones are said to be stronger in compression, with the tension side being the weakest and failing first [13,30].”
  • A potential explanation for the non-significant differences is the impact-related nature of BFT_autopsy cases, consisting of traffic accidents and falls, which transfers more kinetic energy, involves triaxial stress states and multiple high impact points, unlike a simple three-point bend.

    “A potential explanation for this may be impact-related nature of the BFT_autopsy cases, consisting of traffic accidents and falls, which transfers more kinetic energy, involves triaxial stress states and multiple high impact points on the bone, unlike a fracture caused by a relatively simple three-point bend [16,30].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christensen, A., Rickman, J., & Berryman, H.
Venue
Forensic Anthropology
Published
2021-06-25
ISSN
  • 2573-5039
  • 2573-5020
Cited by
4
References
1

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