Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-nzk4m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T23:31:35.777Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A probabilistic approach to bone fracture analysisa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Ramana Sadananda
Ramana Sadananda
Affiliation:
8015 Daffodil Court, Springfield, Virginia 22152
Get access

Abstract

Bones are biological structural materials made of dynamically adaptable tissues. They can be considered as complex natural composite materials with load bearing constituents such as osteons and interstitial lamellae cemented with weak bonding materials. In addition, they contain Haversian and Volkmann canals that are functionally needed but are structurally weak. Because of large variation in microstructure, the strength of a bone varies from bone to bone and animal to animal. In this study the applicability of Weibull statistics to fracture strength of bones has been evaluated. The statistics is based on the weakest link theory and has been used successfully for probabilistic design of critical engineering structural components. The analysis shows that the statistics is valid when applied to each type of bone and it differentiates data from different types of bones. The analysis provides an insight in terms of how nature designs its load bearing structures by the process of natural selection.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 202 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Mechanical Properties of Bones, edited by Cowin, S. C. (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1981), AMD 45.Google Scholar
2Katz, J. L., “The Structure and Biomechanics of Bone”, in Me-chanical Properties of Bones, Ref. 1.Google Scholar
3Corondan, G. and Haworth, W. L., J. Biomechanics 19, 207 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Bonfield, W., J. Biomechanics 20, 1071 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Wright, T. M. and Hayes, W. C., J. Biomechanics 10, 419 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Curry, J. D., “What is Bone For?—Function Relationship in Bone”, in Mechanical Properties of Bones, Ref. 1.Google Scholar
7Bonfield, W., “Mechanisms of Fracture in Bone”, in Mechanical Properties of Bones, Ref. 1.Google Scholar
8Weibull, W., J. Appl. Mech. 18, 293 (1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Corten, H. T., “Micromechanics and Fracture Behavior of Composites”, in Modern Composite Materials, edited by Broutman, L. J. and Kroch, R. H. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1967).Google Scholar
10Evans, A. G. and Langdon, T. G., “Structural Ceramics”, in Progress in Materials Science, edited by Chalmers, B. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976), Vol. 21.Google Scholar
11Argon, A. S., “Statistical Aspects of Fracture”, in Composite Materials, edited by Broutman, L. J. (Academic Press, 1974), Vol. 15.Google Scholar
12Abernethy, R. B., A Weibull Handbook (Pratt Whitney Aircraft Division, United Technologies, Hartford, CT, 1975).Google Scholar
13Evans, F. G., Mechanical Properties of Bones (Thomas, Springfield, 1973).Google Scholar
14ASTM-Annual Book of Standards-E855–84 (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA; 1985), Section 3, Vol. 3.01, pp. 817–829.Google Scholar
15Nunes, J., Composites Technology Review 5, 53 (1983).Google Scholar
16Alexander, R. Mc. N., Science Progress 67, 109 (1981).Google Scholar