2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A two-layer elasto-visco-plastic rheological model for the material parameter identification of bone tissue

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The ability to measure bone tissue material properties plays a major role in diagnosis of diseases and material modeling. Bone’s response to loading is complex and shows a viscous contribution to stiffness, yield and failure. It is also ductile and damaging and exhibits plastic hardening until failure. When performing mechanical tests on bone tissue, these constitutive effects are difficult to quantify, as only their combination is visible in resulting stress–strain data. In this study, a methodology for the identification of stiffness, damping, yield stress and hardening coefficients of bone from a single cyclic tensile test is proposed. The method is based on a two-layer elasto-visco-plastic rheological model that is capable of reproducing the specimens’ pre- and postyield response. The model’s structure enables for capturing the viscously induced increase in stiffness, yield, and ultimate stress and for a direct computation of the loss tangent. Material parameters are obtained in an inverse approach by optimizing the model response to fit the experimental data. The proposed approach is demonstrated by identifying material properties of individual bone trabeculae that were tested under wet conditions. The mechanical tests were conducted according to an already published methodology for tensile experiments on single trabeculae. As a result, long-term and instantaneous Young’s moduli were obtained, which were on average 3.64 GPa and 5.61 GPa, respectively. The found yield stress of 16.89 MPa was lower than previous studies suggest, while the loss tangent of 0.04 is in good agreement. In general, the two-layer model was able to reproduce the cyclic mechanical test data of single trabeculae with an root-mean-square error of 2.91 ± 1.77 MPa. The results show that inverse rheological modeling can be of great advantage when multiple constitutive contributions shall be quantified based on a single mechanical measurement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Simplex Method for Function Minimization

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? – Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature

            Both the root mean square error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE) are regularly employed in model evaluation studies. Willmott and Matsuura (2005) have suggested that the RMSE is not a good indicator of average model performance and might be a misleading indicator of average error, and thus the MAE would be a better metric for that purpose. While some concerns over using RMSE raised by Willmott and Matsuura (2005) and Willmott et al. (2009) are valid, the proposed avoidance of RMSE in favor of MAE is not the solution. Citing the aforementioned papers, many researchers chose MAE over RMSE to present their model evaluation statistics when presenting or adding the RMSE measures could be more beneficial. In this technical note, we demonstrate that the RMSE is not ambiguous in its meaning, contrary to what was claimed by Willmott et al. (2009). The RMSE is more appropriate to represent model performance than the MAE when the error distribution is expected to be Gaussian. In addition, we show that the RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality requirement for a distance metric, whereas Willmott et al. (2009) indicated that the sums-of-squares-based statistics do not satisfy this rule. In the end, we discussed some circumstances where using the RMSE will be more beneficial. However, we do not contend that the RMSE is superior over the MAE. Instead, a combination of metrics, including but certainly not limited to RMSEs and MAEs, are often required to assess model performance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements.

              An ultrasonic technique and microtensile testing were used to determine the Young's modulus of individual trabeculae and micro-specimens of cortical bone cut to similar size as individual trabeculae. The average trabecular Young's modulus measured ultrasonically and mechanically was 14.8 GPa (S.D. 1.4) and 10.4 (S.D. 3.5) and the average Young's modulus of microspecimens of cortical bone measured ultrasonically and mechanically was 20.7 GPa (S.D. 1.9) and 18.6 GPa (S.D. 3.5). With either testing technique the mean trabecular Young's modulus was found to be significantly less than that of cortical bone (p < 0.0001). However, the specimens were dried before microtensile testing so Young's modulus values may have been greater than those of trabeculae in vivo. Using Young's modulus measurements obtained from 450 cubes of cancellous bone and 256 cubes of cortical bone, Wolff's hypothesis that cortical bone is simply dense cancellous bone was tested. A multiple regression analysis that controlled for group membership showed that Young's modulus of cortical bone cannot be extrapolated from the Young's modulus vs density relationship for cancellous bone, yet the Young's modulus of trabeculae can be predicted by extrapolation from the relationship between Young's modulus vs density of the cancellous bone. These results suggest that when considered mechanically, cortical and trabecular bone are not the same material.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andreas.reisinger@kl.ac.at , andreas.reisinger@tuwien.ac.at
                Journal
                Biomech Model Mechanobiol
                Biomech Model Mechanobiol
                Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1617-7959
                1617-7940
                6 May 2020
                6 May 2020
                2020
                : 19
                : 6
                : 2149-2162
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.459693.4, Division Biomechanics, Department of Anatomy and Biomechanics, , Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, ; Krems an der Donau, Austria
                [2 ]GRID grid.5329.d, ISNI 0000 0001 2348 4034, Institute of Lightweight Design and Structural Biomechanics, , Vienna University of Technology, ; Vienna, Austria
                Article
                1329
                10.1007/s10237-020-01329-0
                7603462
                32377934
                45dbb32f-851e-4f89-8304-906fec276286
                © The Author(s) 2020, corrected publication 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 July 2019
                : 13 April 2020
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

                Biophysics
                two-layer rheological model,trabecular bone,single trabecula,plasticity,viscosity,material parameter identification,optimization

                Comments

                Comment on this article