Advertisement

Effects of direction and shape of osteocyte lacunae on resisting impact and micro-damage of osteon

  • Yuxi Liu
  • Bin Chen
  • Dagang Yin
Clinical Applications of Biomaterials Original Research
  • 184 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Clinical Applications of Biomaterials

Abstract

Animal bones bear varied impact loadings during in the movements of animals. The impact resistance and micro-damage of bones are influenced by their various microstructures at different length scales. In this paper, according to the microstructure of osteon, three 2-D microstructure models (circumferential ellipse lacunae (Model A), radial elliptical lacunae (Model B) and circular lacunae (Model C) were constructed for investigating the influences of the arranged direction and shape of osteocyte lacunae on resisting impact and micro-damage. Impact analytical results show that the maximal stress of the Model A is the minimum and that of the Model B is the maximal under same boundary conditions, which indicates that the circumferentially elliptical lacunae, whose minor axis is along the radial direction of the osteon (Model A), can enhance impact resistance of osteons effectively. The investigated results of the progressive damage show that the circumferentially ellipse lacunae (Model A) are more benefit to resist micro-damage and that the micro-cracks in the model are mainly along the circumferential direction of the osteon. These investigated results for the novel microstructures found in osteon can serve engineers as guidance in the designs of biomimetic and bioinspired tubular structures or materials for engineering applications.

Keywords

Impact Velocity Circumferential Direction Bone Sample Nanoindentation Test Progressive Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 11272367).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no Conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Akiva U, Wagner HD, Weiner S. Modelling the three-dimensional elastic constants of parallel-fibred and lamellar bone. J Mater Sci. 1998;33:1497–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Landis WJ. The strength of a calcified tissue depends in part on themolecular-structure and organization of its constituent mineral crystals in their organic matrix. Bone. 1995;16:533–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiner S, Wagner HD. The material bone: structure-mechanical function relations. Annu Rev Mater Sci. 1998;28:271–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wegst UGK, Ashby MF. The mechanical efficiency of natural materials. Phil Mag. 2007;84:2167–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunlop JWC, Fratzl P. Biological composites. Annu Rev Mater Res. 2010;40:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olszta MJ, Cheng X, Jee SS, et al. Bone structure and formation: a new perspective. Mater Sci Eng R Rep. 2007;58:77–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elham H, Yikhan L, Iwona J. Multiscale modeling of elastic properties of cortical bone. Acta Mech. 2010;213:131–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor D, Hazenberg JG, Lee TC. Living with cracks: damage and repair in human bone. Nat Mater. 2007;6:263–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ritchie RO, Kinney JH, Kruzic JJ, Nalla RK. A fracture mechanics and mechanistic approach to the failure of cortical bone. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2005;28:345–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nalla RK, Stölken JS, Kinney JH, Ritchie RO. Fracture in human cortical bone: local fracture criteria and toughening mechanisms. J Biomech. 2005;38(7):1517–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryan S, Williams J. Tensile testing of rodlike trabeculae excised from bovine femoral bone. J Biomech. 1989;22:351–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rho J, Ashman R, Turner C. Young’s modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech. 1993;26:111–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McNamara LM, Ederveen AGH, Lyons CG, et al. Strength of cancellous bone trabecular tissue from normal, ovariectomized and drug-treated rats over the course of ageing. Bone. 2006;39:392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rho JY, Roy ME, Tsui TY, Pharr GM. Elastic properties of microstructural components of human bone tissue as measured by nanoindentation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;45:48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferguson V, Bushby A, Boyde A. Nanomechanical properties and mineral concentration in articular calcified cartilage and subchondral bone. J Anat. 2003;203:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ozcivici E, Ferreri S, Qin Y, Judex S. Determination of bone’s mechanical matrix properties by nanoindentation. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;455:323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ascenzi A, Bonucci E, Simkin A. An approach to the mechanical properties of single osteonic lamellae. J Biomech. 1973;6:227–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nalla RK, Kinney JH, Ritchie RO. Mechanistic fracture criteria for the failure of human cortical bone. Nat Mater. 2003;2:164–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ebacher V, Guy P, Oxland TR, Wang R. Sub-lamellar microcracking and roles of canaliculi in human cortical bone. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:1093–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eugenio G, Camila A, Ana V, et al. Numerical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of an osteon with microcracks. J Mech Behav. 2014;37:109–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reilly GC. Observations of microdamage around osteocyte lacunae in bone. J Biomech. 2000;33:1131–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mccreadie BR, Hollister SJ, Schaffler MB, Goldstein SA. Osteocyte lacuna size and shape in women with and without osteporotic fracture. J Biomech. 2004;37:563–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liang F, Michael C, Jeffrey S, et al. Mechanical properties of porcine femoral cortical bone measured by nanoindentation. J Biomech. 2012;45:1775–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adharapurapu RR, Jiang F, Vecchio KS. Dynamic fracture of bovine bone. Mat Sci Eng C. 2006;26:1325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oliver WC, Pharr GM. An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J Mater Res Soc. 1992;7:1564–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weiner S, Arad T, Traub W. Crystal organization in rat bone lamellae. FEBS Lett. 1991;285:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cowin SC, (Ed.). Bone Mechanics Handbook. Boca Ratón. FL: CRC Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tay TE, Liu G, Tan VBC, Sun XS, Pham DC. Progressive failure analysis of composites. J Compos Mater. 2008;42:1921–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chang FK, Chang KY. A progressive damage model for laminated composites containing stress concentrations. J Compos Mater. 1987;21:834–55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hou JP, Petrinic N, Ruiz C, Hallett SR. Prediction of impact damage in composite plates. Compos Sci Technol. 2000;60:273–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lapczyk I, Hurtado JA. Progressive damage modeling in fiber-reinforced materials. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf. 2007;38:2333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brewer JC, Lagace PA. Quadratic stress criterion for initiation of delamination. J Compos Mater. 1988;22:1141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and ControlChongqing UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.College of Aerospace EngineeringChongqing UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations