The objective of our study is to develop extended finite element method models of cancellous bone specimens that are capable of accurately predicting the onset and propagation of cracks under mechanical loading. In order to do so, previously published three-point bending test results of a single trabecula were replicated using two different extended finite element method approaches, namely, elastic-plastic-fracture and elastic-fracture that considered different configurations of the elasto-plastic properties of bone from which the best approach to fit the experimental data was identified. The behavior of a single trabecula was then used in 2D extended finite element method models to quantify the strength of the trabecular tissue of the forearm along three perpendicular anatomical axes. The results revealed that the elastic-plastic-fracture model better represented the experimental data in the model of a single trabecula. Considering the 2D trabecular specimens, the elastic fracture model predicted higher strength than the elastic-plastic-fracture model and there was no difference in stiffness between the two models. In general, the specimens exhibited higher failure strain and more ductile behavior in compression than in tension. In addition, strength and stiffness were found to be higher in tension than compression on average. It can be concluded that with proper parameters, extended finite element method is capable of simulating the ductile behavior of cancellous bone. The models are able to quantify the tensile strength of trabecular tissue in the various anatomical directions reporting an increased strength in the longitudinal direction of forearm cancellous bone tissue. Extended finite element method of cancellous bone proves to be a valuable tool to predict the mechanical characteristics of cancellous bones as a function of the microstructure.
BurrDBAllenMR. Basic and applied bone biology. London: Academic Press, 2013.
2.
O’BrienFJTaylorDLeeTC. The effect of bone microstructure on the initiation and growth of microcracks. J Orthop Res2005; 23(2): 475–480.
3.
SongJ-HWangHBelytschkoT. A comparative study on finite element methods for dynamic fracture. Comput Mech2008; 42(2): 239–250.
4.
LeeHChoiJSJungKH, et al. Application of element deletion method for numerical analyses of cracking. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng2009; 35(2): 154–161.
5.
JohnsonPPetrinicNSüliE. Element splitting for simulation of fracture in 3D solid continua. In: VIII International Conference on Computational Plasticity. COMPLAS VIII., OñateEOwenDRJ (eds), 2005, pp. 507–512. Barcelona: CIMNE.
6.
ABAQUS. ABAQUS user manual (version 6.14), 2014.
7.
IdkaidekAJasiukI. Cortical bone fracture analysis using XFEM —case study. Int J Numer Meth Bio2017; 33(4). DOI: 10.1002/cnm.2809.
8.
AliAACristofoliniLSchileoE, et al. Specimen-specific modeling of hip fracture pattern and repair. J Biomech2014; 47(2): 536–543.
9.
GiambiniHQinXDragomir-DaescuD, et al. Specimen-specific vertebral fracture modeling: a feasibility study using the extended finite element method. Med Biolog Eng Comput2016; 54(4): 583–593.
10.
MohammedElSallahZBenbarekSBenouisA, et al. Numerical simulation of the femur fracture with and without prosthesis under static loading using extended finite element method (X-FEM). J Mech Eng2017; 14(1): 97–112.
11.
ShimVBöhmeJVaitlP, et al. Finite element analysis of acetabular fractures—development and validation with a synthetic pelvis. J Biomech2010; 43(8): 1635–1639.
12.
HambliR. Micro-CT finite element model and experimental validation of trabecular bone damage and fracture. Bone2013; 56(2): 363–374.
13.
NieburGLFeldsteinaMJYuenaJC, et al. High-resolution finite element models with tissue strength asymmetry accurately predict failure of trabecular bone. J Biomech2000; 33(12): 1575–1583.
14.
NagarajaSCouseTLGuldbergRE. Trabecular bone microdamage and microstructural stresses under uniaxial compression. J Biomech2005; 38(4): 707–716.
15.
HambliRBettamerAAllaouiS. Finite element prediction of proximal femur fracture pattern based on orthotropic behaviour law coupled to quasi-brittle damage. Med Eng Phys2012; 34(2): 202–210.
16.
ChevalierYCharleboisMPahrD, et al. A patient-specific finite element methodology to predict damage accumulation in vertebral bodies under axial compression, sagittal flexion and combined loads. Comput Method Biomec2008; 11(5): 477–487.
17.
KosmopoulosVKellerTS. Finite element modeling of trabecular bone damage. Comput Method Biomec2003; 6(3): 209–216.
18.
FeerickEMLiuXCMcGarryP. Anisotropic mode-dependent damage of cortical bone using the extended finite element method (XFEM). J Mech Behav Biomed2013; 20: 77–89.
19.
LiSAbdel-WahabASilberschmidtVV. Analysis of fracture processes in cortical bone tissue. Eng Fract Mech2013; 110: 448–458.
20.
Budyn HocÉT. Multiple scale modeling for cortical bone fracture in tension using X-FEM. Eur J Comput Mech2007; 16(2): 213–236.
21.
LiSAbdel-WahabADemiciE, et al. Fracture process in cortical bone: X-FEM analysis of microstructured models. Int J Fracture2013; 184(1–2): 43–55.
22.
BudynEHocTJonvauxJ. Fracture strength assessment and aging signs detection in human cortical bone using an X-FEM multiple scale approach. Comput Mech2008; 42(4): 579–591.
23.
FeerickEMMcGarryJP. Cortical bone failure mechanisms during screw pullout. J Biomech2012; 45(9): 1666–1672.
BesdoSVashishthD. Extended finite element models of introcortical porosity and heterogeneity in cortical bone. Comp Mater Sci2012; 64: 301–305.
26.
Abdel-WahabAASilberschmidtVV. Numerical modelling of impact fracture of cortical bone tissue using X-FEM. J Theor Appl Mech2011; 49: 599–619.
27.
Abdel-WahabAAMalignoASilberschmidtVV. Dynamic properties of cortical bone tissue: izod tests and numerical study. Comput Mater Continua2010; 19(3): 217.
28.
UralAMischinskiS. Multiscale modeling of bone fracture using cohesive finite elements. Eng Fract Mech2013; 103: 141–152.
29.
IdkaidekAKoricSJasiukI. Fracture analysis of multi-osteon cortical bone using XFEM. Comput Mech2017; 62: 171–184.
30.
BudynEHocT. Analysis of micro fracture in human Haversian cortical bone under transverse tension using extended physical imaging. Int J Numer Meth Eng2010; 82(8): 940–965.
31.
JonvauxJHocTBudynE. Analysis of micro fracture in human Haversian cortical bone under compression. Int J Numer Meth Bio2012; 28(9): 974–998.
32.
HammondMAWallaceJMAllenMR, et al. Mechanics of linear microcracking in trabecular bone. J Biomech2019; 83: 34–42.
33.
TranTLeeHLimS. Modelling porous structures by penalty approach in the extended finite element method. Comput Method Biomec2013; 16(4): 347–357.
34.
LucchinettiEThomannDDanuserG. Review micromechanical testing of bone trabeculae-potentials and limitations. J Mater Sci2000; 35(24): 6057–6065.
35.
PalS. Design of artificial human joints & organs. New York: Springer, 2016.
36.
StölkenJKinneyJ. On the importance of geometric nonlinearity in finite-element simulations of trabecular bone failure. Bone2003; 33(4): 494–504.
37.
ThurnerPJEricksonBJungmannR, et al. High-speed photography of compressed human trabecular bone correlates whitening to microscopic damage. Eng Fract Mech2007; 74(12): 1928–1941.
38.
BayraktarHHMorganEFNieburGL, et al. Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech2004; 37(1): 27–35.
39.
GongHWangLFanY, et al. Apparent-and tissue-level yield behaviors of L4 vertebral trabecular bone and their associations with microarchitectures. Ann Biomed Eng2016; 44(4): 1204–1223.
40.
RidhaHThurnerPJ. Finite element prediction with experimental validation of damage distribution in single trabeculae during three-point bending tests. J Mech Behav Biomed2013; 27: 94–106.
41.
JungmannRSzaboMESchitterG, et al. Local strain and damage mapping in single trabeculae during three-point bending tests. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2011; 4(4): 523–534.
42.
GongHZhangMFanY. Micro-finite element analysis of trabecular bone yield behavior—effects of tissue nonlinear material properties. J Mech Med Biol2011; 11(3): 563–580.
43.
NallaRKKinneyJRitchieRO. Mechanistic fracture criteria for the failure of human cortical bone. Nat Mater2003; 2(3): 164.
44.
KeavenyTMWachtelEFFordCM, et al. Differences between the tensile and compressive strengths of bovine tibial trabecular bone depend on modulus. J Biomechanics1994; 27(9): 1137–1146.
45.
KeavenyTMWachtelEFKopperdahlDL. Mechanical behavior of human trabecular bone after overloading. J Orthop Res1999; 17(3): 346–353.
46.
KeavenyTMMorganEFNieburGL, et al. Biomechanics of trabecular bone. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2001; 3(1): 307–333.
47.
WolframUWilkeH-JZyssetPK. Damage accumulation in vertebral trabecular bone depends on loading mode and direction. J Biomech2011; 44(6): 1164–1169.
48.
MacNeilJABoydSK. Bone strength at the distal radius can be estimated from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and the finite element method. Bone2008; 42(6): 1203–1213.
49.
RenWYangZSharmaR, et al. Two-dimensional X-ray CT image based meso-scale fracture modelling of concrete. Eng Fract Mech2015; 133: 24–39.
50.
ZhouJQiLGokhaleAM. Generation of three-dimensional microstructure model for discontinuously reinforced composite by modified random sequential absorption method. J Eng Mater: T ASME2016; 138(2): 021001.
51.
LópezCMCarolIAguadoA. Meso-structural study of concrete fracture using interface elements. I: numerical model and tensile behavior. Mater Struct2008; 41(3): 583–599.
52.
WuDIsakssonPFegusonSJ, et al. Young’s modulus of trabecular bone at the tissue level: a review. Acta Biomater2018; 78: 1–12.
53.
RiegerRAureganJCHocT. Micro-finite-element method to assess elastic properties of trabecular bone at micro-and macroscopic level. Morphologie2018; 102(336): 12–20.
54.
YamadaSTadanoSFukudaS. Nanostructure and elastic modulus of single trabecula in bovine cancellous bone. J Biomech2014; 47(14): 3482–3487.
55.
SzabóMTaylorMThurnerP. Mechanical properties of single bovine trabeculae are unaffected by strain rate. J Biomech2011; 44(5): 962–967.
56.
CarrettaRLuisierBBernoulliD, et al. Novel method to analyze post-yield mechanical properties at trabecular bone tissue level. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2013; 20: 6–18.
57.
AlnaasW. Nonlinear finite element analysis of quasi-brittle materials. Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2016.
58.
LangCMakhijaDDoostanA, et al. A simple and efficient preconditioning scheme for heaviside enriched XFEM. Comput Mech2014; 54(5): 1357–1374.
59.
KruegerR. Development of and application of benchmark examples for mixedmode I/II quasi-static delamination propagation predictions. Technical Report NASA-CR-2012-217562, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2012.
60.
NawatheSYangHFieldsAJ, et al. Theoretical effects of fully ductile versus fully brittle behaviors of bone tissue on the strength of the human proximal femur and vertebral body. J Biomech2015; 48(7): 1264–1269.
61.
NawatheSJuillardFKeavenyTM. Theoretical bounds for the influence of tissue-level ductility on the apparent-level strength of human trabecular bone. J Biomech2013; 46(7): 1293–1299.
62.
RøhlLLarsenELindeF, et al. Tensile and compressive properties of cancellous bone. J Biomech1991; 24(12): 1143–1149.
63.
CharleboisMPretterklieberMZyssetPK. The role of fabric in the large strain compressive behavior of human trabecular bone. J Biomech Eng2010; 132(12): 121006.
64.
FordCMKeavenyTM. The dependence of shear failure properties of trabecular bone on apparent density and trabecular orientation. J Biomech1996; 29(10): 1309–1317.
65.
SchwiedrzikJGrossTBinaM, et al. Experimental validation of a nonlinear μFE model based on cohesive-frictional plasticity for trabecular bone. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng2016; 32(4): e02739.
66.
FrostHM. Wolff’s Law and bone’s structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod1994; 64(3): 175–188.
67.
VerhulpEvan RietbergenBMüllerR, et al. Indirect determination of trabecular bone effective tissue failure properties using micro-finite element simulations. J Biomech2008; 41(7): 1479–1485.
68.
MorganEFKeavenyTM. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomechanics2001; 34(5): 569–577.
69.
MorganEFBayraktarHHKeavenyTM. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech2003; 36(7): 897–904.
