Elastic constants of composites formed from PMMA bone cement and anisotropic bovine tibial cancellous bone
Abstract
An ultrasonic pulse-transit time technique is used to determine the nine orthotropic engineering constants of 32 cement-cancellous bone composites as a function of volume fractions of bone ranging from 0.0 to 0.4. The composites are manufactured using well-aligned bovine cancellous bone from the proximal end of the tibia and low viscosity bone cement. Selected composites are also subjected to mechanical compression tests to compare with the ultrasonic results. There is excellent correlation between the dynamic or ultrasonically determined moduli and the static or mechanically determined moduli; the dynamic moduli are approximately twice the static moduli and this difference is thought to be due to the effect of strain rate. An orthotropic model is assumed requiring nine independent elastic constants to be determined. The dynamic Young's modulus in the direction of major trabecular alignment, E1, increases linearly from 4.9 to 10.4 GPa as bone volume fraction increases from 0 to 0.4; dynamic E2 and E3 values increase from 4.9 to 7 GPa as bone volume fractions increase from 0 to 0.4, with E2 being slightly higher than E3. The dynamic shear modulus, G12, increases from 1.8 to 3.0 GPa, and G31 and G23 increase slightly from 1.8 to 2.2 GPa as bone volume fractions increase from 0 to 0.4. The Poisson's ratios are more sensitive than the Young's moduli and shear moduli to experimental error in the velocity measurements. The mechanically tested modulus (static modulus) in the direction of major trabecular alignment, E1, increases with volume fraction of bone from 2.4 to 4.4 GPa as the bone volume fraction increases from 0 to 0.25; static E2 and E3 values are either equal to or lower than that of pure PMMA. © 1989.
Publication Title
Journal of Biomechanics
Recommended Citation
Williams, J., & Johnson, W. (1989). Elastic constants of composites formed from PMMA bone cement and anisotropic bovine tibial cancellous bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 22 (6-7), 673-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(89)90017-1