Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Mar 7;271(1538):517–522. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2634

Notch sensitivity of mammalian mineralized tissues in impact.

John D Currey 1, Kevin Brear 1, Peter Zioupos 1
PMCID: PMC1691617  PMID: 15129962

Abstract

The toughness of bone is an important feature in preventing it from fracturing. We consider the notch sensitivity in impact, and the associations between brittleness, notch sensitivity and post-yield energy absorption of mammalian mineralized tissues. Specimens of bone-like tissues covering a wide range of mineralization were broken, either notched or un-notched, in impact. The greater the mineral content, the greater was the notch sensitivity. Also, the more brittle tissues dissipated the least post-yield energy and were the most notch sensitive. It is suggested that since antler bone, the least mineralized of all known mammalian mineralized tissues, seems to be notch insensitive in impact, no adaptive purpose would be served by having mineralized tissues of a lower mineralization than antler. This may explain the lower cut-off in mineralization seen in mammals.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (174.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Carter D. R., Caler W. E. Cycle-dependent and time-dependent bone fracture with repeated loading. J Biomech Eng. 1983 May;105(2):166–170. doi: 10.1115/1.3138401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Currey J. D., Brear K., Zioupos P. The effects of ageing and changes in mineral content in degrading the toughness of human femora. J Biomech. 1996 Feb;29(2):257–260. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(95)00048-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Currey J. D., Butler G. The mechanical properties of bone tissue in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Sep;57(6):810–814. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Currey J. D. Changes in the impact energy absorption of bone with age. J Biomech. 1979;12(6):459–469. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(79)90031-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Currey J. D. What determines the bending strength of compact bone? J Exp Biol. 1999 Sep;202(Pt 18):2495–2503. doi: 10.1242/jeb.202.18.2495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lees S., Hanson D. B., Page E. A. Some acoustical properties of the otic bones of a fin whale. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Apr;99(4 Pt 1):2421–2427. doi: 10.1121/1.415430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Les C. M., Stover S. M., Keyak J. H., Taylor K. T., Kaneps A. J. Stiff and strong compressive properties are associated with brittle post-yield behavior in equine compact bone material. J Orthop Res. 2002 May;20(3):607–614. doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(01)00138-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sarkar B. C., Chauhan U. P. A new method for determining micro quantities of calcium in biological materials. Anal Biochem. 1967 Jul;20(1):155–166. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(67)90273-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Spatz H. C., O'Leary E. J., Vincent J. F. Young's moduli and shear moduli in cortical bone. Proc Biol Sci. 1996 Mar 22;263(1368):287–294. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES