Computational Mechanics

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 171–184 | Cite as

Fracture analysis of multi-osteon cortical bone using XFEM

  • Ashraf Idkaidek
  • Seid Koric
  • Iwona Jasiuk
Original Paper


Fracture analysis of a cortical bone sample from a tibia of a 70 years-old human male donor is conducted computationally using an extended finite element method. The cortical bone microstructure is represented by several osteons arranged based on bone microscopy image. The accuracy of results is examined by comparing a linear elastic fracture mechanics approach with a cohesive segment approach and varying the finite element model mesh density, element type, damage evolution, and boundary conditions. Microstructural features of cortical bone are assumed to be linear elastic and isotropic. We find that the accuracy of results is influenced by the finite element model mesh density, simulation increment size, element type, and the fracture approach type. Using a relatively fine mesh or small simulation increment size gives inaccurate results compared to using an optimized mesh density and simulation increment size. Also, mechanical properties of cortical bone phases influence the crack propagation path and speed.


Cortical bone Extended finite element method Fracture Microstructure Crack growth 



This research was partially supported by the National Science Foundation DMR Program Grant 15-07169 and the Blue Waters sustained-petascale computing project at NCSA. The Blue Waters is supported by NSF awards OCI-0725070 and ACI-1238993, and by the state of Illinois. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Abdel-Wahab A, Maligno A, Silberschmidt V (2012) Micro-scale modelling of bovine cortical bone fracture: analysis of crack propagation and microstructure using X-FEM. Comput Mater Sci 52:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ager JW, Balooch G, Ritchie RO (2006) Fracture, aging, and disease in bone. J Mater Res 21:1878–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayraktar H, Morgan E, Niebur G, Morris G, Wong E, Keaveny T (2004) Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech 37:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budyn E (2006) Multi-scale modeling of human cortical bone: aging and failure studies. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 975:27–32Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Budyn E, Hoc T (2010) Analysis of micro fracture in human Haversian cortical bone under transverse tension using extended physical imaging. Int J Numer Methods Eng 82:940–965CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Budyn E, Hoc T, Jonvaux J (2008) Fracture strength assessment and aging signs detection in human cortical bone using an X-FEM multiple scale approach. Comput Mech 42:579–591CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budyn E, Jonvaux J, Funfschulling C, Hoc T (2012) Bovine cortical bone stiffness and local strain are affected by mineralization and morphology. J Appl Mech 79:1–12Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giner E, Arango C, Vercher A, Fuenmayor FJ (2014) Numerical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of an osteon with microcracks. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 37:109–124Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feerick Emer M, Liu XC, McGarry P (2013) Anisotropic mode-dependent damage of cortical bone using the extended finite element method (XFEM). J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 20:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Idkaidek A, Jasiuk I (2016) Cortical bone fracture analysis using XFEM–case study. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 33(4):e02809Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonvaux J, Hoc T, Budyn É (2012) Analysis of micro fracture in human Haversian cortical bone under compression. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 28:974–998MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mischinski S, Ural A (2013) Interaction of microstructure and microcrack growth in cortical bone: a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 16:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nalla R, Stölken J, Kinney J, Ritchie R (2005) Fracture in human cortical bone: local fracture criteria and toughening mechanisms. J Biomech 38:1517–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nobakhti S, Limbert G, Thurner P (2014) Cement lines and interlamellar areas in compact bone as strain amplifiers—contributors to elasticity, fracture toughness and mechanotransduction. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 29:235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pattin CA, Calet WE, Carter DR (1996) Cyclic mechanical property degradation during fatigue loading of cortical bone. J Biomech 29:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ural A, Mischinski S (2013) Multiscale modeling of bone fracture using cohesive finite elements. Eng Fract Mech 103:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmermann Elizabeth A, Launey ME, Barth HD, Ritchie RO (2009) Mixed-mode fracture of human cortical bone. Biomaterials 30:5877–5884CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Science and EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Supercomputing ApplicationsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations