Is the 0.2%-Strain-Offset Approach Appropriate for Calculating the Yield Stress of Cortical Bone?

• Published in: Annals of biomedical engineering Vol. 49; no. 7; pp. 1747 - 1760
• Main Authors: Zhang, Guanjun, Luo, Junjie, Zheng, Gang, Bai, Zhonghao, Cao, Libo, Mao, Haojie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.07.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Animals; Bend tests; Biochemistry; Biological and Medical Physics; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanics; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering; Biomedicine; Biophysics; Cattle; Classical Mechanics; Computer applications; Cortical bone; Cortical Bone - chemistry; Elastic Modulus; Femur - chemistry; Finite Element Analysis; Finite element method; Loading; Material properties; Mathematical models; Mechanical properties; Modulus of elasticity; Offsets; Optimization; Original Article; Parameters; Strain; Stress, Mechanical; Tensile tests; Yield; Yield point; Yield strength; Yield stress; Tensile; Specimen-specific finite element; Beam theory; Strain offset approach; Three-point bending; Digital image correlation; Yield stress; Cortical bone
• ISSN: 0090-6964; 1573-9686
• DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-02719-2

The 0.2% strain offset approach is mostly used to calculate the yield stress and serves as an efficient method for cross-lab comparisons of measured material properties. However, it is difficult to accurately determine the yield of the bone. Especially when computational models require accurate material parameters, clarification of the yield point is needed. We tested 24 cortical specimens harvested from six bovine femora in three-point bending mode, and 11 bovine femoral cortical specimens in the tensile mode. The Young’s modulus and yield stress for each specimen derived from the specimen-specific finite element (FE) optimization method was regarded as the most ideal constitutive parameter. Then, the strain offset optimization method was used to find the strain offset closest to the ideal yield stress for the 24 specimens. The results showed that the 0 strain offsets underestimated (− 25%) the yield stress in bending and tensile tests, while the 0.2% strain offsets overestimated the yield stress (+ 65%) in three-point bending tests. Instead, the yield stress determined by 0.007 and 0.05% strain offset for bending and tensile loading respectively, can effectively characterize the biomechanical responses of the bone, thereby helping to build an accurate FE model.