Forensic Fractography of Bone: Fracture Origins from Impacts, and an Improved Understanding of the Failure Mechanism Involved in Beveling
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
Cites
Statistics
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 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].”
From Osteonal Damage Patterns from Ballistic and Blunt Force Trauma in Human Long Bones (2024) · cites this paper as [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].”
From Osteonal Damage Patterns from Ballistic and Blunt Force Trauma in Human Long Bones (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
Cites
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Osteonal Damage Patterns from Ballistic and Blunt Force Trauma in Human Long Bones
Sexton, K., Schwab, N., Galtés, I., Casas, A., Armentano, N., Brillas, P., Garrido, X., & Jordana, X. (2024) · Life · doi:10.3390/life14020220 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Microscopic characteristics of peri- and postmortem fracture surfaces
Skinner, J., Langley, N., Fahrenholtz, S., Shanavas, Y., Waletzki, B., Brown, R., Herrick, J., Shyamsunder, L., Goguen, P., & Rajan, S. (2024) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112223 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Okaluk, T., Dallmann, J., Cohen, H., Greenfield, T. L., & Shai, I. (2026) · International Journal of Osteoarchaeology · doi:10.1002/oa.70058
- Authors
- Christensen, A., Rickman, J., & Berryman, H.
- Venue
- Forensic Anthropology
- Publisher
- University Press of Florida
- 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