Results – Tables, Graphs and Figures

Table X. Measured Material dimensions and Critical Values

Width/ Thickness/ Inner

Inner Outer Major Outer Cross-
Material Gage Minor Minor Diam Major Sectional
Trial # Length Diameter Diameter eter Diameter Length Area Volume Mass Density
Units (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm3) (g) (g/cc)
Trabecular (#1) 37.28 25.34 26.12 NA NA 34.4 661.8808 22768.7 2.78 0.1221
(#2) 36.23 25.86 25.79 NA NA 34.69 666.9294 23135.8 0.1202
(#3) 35.58 25.68 25.76 NA NA 34.97 661.5168 23133.2 0.1202
Average 36.363 25.626 25.89 NA NA 34.687 663.442 23012.6 0.121
Cortical (#1) 50.81 7.2 9.84 10.59 14.27 52.39 50.398 2640.35 8.43 3.193
(#2) 47.16 7.17 9.99 10.62 14.17 52.52 51.3751 2698.22 3.1243
(#3) 48.98 7.26 10.06 10.52 14.12 52.62 51.5787 2714.07 3.106
Average 48.983 7.21 9.9633 10.58 14.1867 52.51 51.117 2684.22 3.1410
Whole Bone (#1) 81.2 NA 8.629 NA 10.21 80.65 69.195 5580.59 17.56 3.147
(#2) 80.49 NA 8.58 NA 10.23 80.5 68.937 5549.43 3.164
(#3) 80.43 NA 8.62 NA 10.18 80.86 68.9199 5572.87 3.151
Average 80.707 NA 8.6097 NA 10.207 80.67 69.0174 5567.63 3.154

Table X. Viscoelastic Sample Results, generated and calculated. ‘E1’ and ‘E2’ refer to extension endpoint pairs 1 and 2
for each material, respectively, and ‘S1’ and ‘S2’ refer to test speeds 1 and 2 for each material, respectively.

Material/Test Peak Valley Peak Peak Stress Hysteresis Hysteresis Stress

Load Load/ Stress Strain Relaxation Peak in 2nd cycle in 5th cycle Relaxation
5th peak of 1st to 5th cycle Peak to End
Units (N) (N) (MPa) (mm/mm) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Trabecular E1, S1 21.4 20.459 32.25 .01 4.370 22.083 17.268 NA
Trabecular E1, S2 19.2 18.078 28.92 .01 5.775 28.885 21.409 NA
Trabecular E2, S1 37.6 31.978 56.67 .02 14.952 28.353 25.424 NA
Trabecular E2, S2 54.1 49.311 81.54 .02 8.847 29.642 24.613 NA
Cortical E1, S1 14.0 9.256 273.8 .01 NA NA NA 33.872
Cortical E1, S2 11.1 6.944 217.9 .01 NA NA NA 37.666
Cortical E2, S1 35.7 24.366 698.8 .02 NA NA NA 31.786
Cortical E2, S2 58.2 39.498 1138 .02 NA NA NA 32.141
Table X. Sample results from Failure Test

Ultimate Ultimate Energy Ultimate Ultimate

Material Load Elongation Absorbed Stiffness Stress Strain Modulus
Units N mm N-mm N/mm MPa mm/mm MPa
Cortical Bone 997.401 29.27 22561.19 197.151 19.5 0.362 599.392
Whole Bone 408.571 7.942 3928.97 74.007 14.5 0.098 287.946
Trabecular
95.99 13.844
Bone 100.357 3.317 0.2 0.09 5.476
Table X. Critical Properties, Determined by Testworks (C)

Material Modulus Compressive Yield Strength Ultimate Strain Failure strain failure stress
Units MPa MPa (mm/mm) (mm/mm) MPa
Cortical Bone 599.392 12.73 0.36 0.36 19.5

Whole Bone 287.946 8.404 0.098 0.184 7.326

Trabecular Bone 5.476 0.15 NA NA NA

Table X. Critical Properties, Re-calculated

Material Modulus Compressive Yield Strength Ultimate Strain Failure strain Failure stress
Units MPa MPa (mm/mm) (mm/mm) MPa
Cortical Bone 188.909 12.723 0.5976 0.5976 19.512

Whole Bone 86.543 3.436 0.0984 0.1877 5.9199

Trabecular Bone 1.658 0.151 NA NA NA

Figure X. Cortical bone failure stress-strain curve with labeled points.

Figure X. Whole bone failure stress-strain curve with labeled points.

Figure X. Trabecular bone failure stress-strain curve with labeled points.

Sample Calculations
Trabecular Bone Cyclic Loading – Hysteresis, Stress Relaxation, Peak Stress
Hysteresis
Percent hysteresis is defined as the percent difference in the area under the loading/unloading curves. Each load/unloading
curve was represented with an exponential function and the area calculated by integrating the function over the time
interval over which the load was applied. Three points per curve were used to solve for initial parameters and coefficients
of each function, A, B and c, where 𝐿(𝑡) = 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵𝑡 − 1) + 𝑐. L is load in N and t is time in seconds.
𝐴
Integrating, ∫ 𝐿(𝑡) = ∫ 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵𝑡 − 1) + 𝑐 = ∫ 𝐴𝑒 𝐵𝑡 − 𝐴 + 𝑐 = ∫ 𝐴𝑒 𝐵𝑡 + (𝑐 − 𝐴) = 𝑒 𝐵𝑡 + (𝑐 − 𝐴)𝑡
𝐵

Solving for the loading curve of the second cycle of the group 1 cyclic endpoints with test speed 1, the points taken were:
(0 s, 4.153 N), (11.1 , 13.9 N), (15.33 s, 20.931 N).

When t = 0, 4.153 = 𝐴(𝑒 𝐵(0) − 1) + 𝑐 = 𝐴(1 − 1) + 𝑐 = 𝑐. Therefore c = 4.153

16.778 𝐴(𝑒 15.33𝐵 −1)
Setting up a system of equations, 9.747 = 𝐴(𝑒 11.1𝐵 −1)
with c being subtracted from the measured load. The equation was
solved using wolfram alpha. B = 0.08760
The solved value of B was substituted back to solve for A:

13.9 = 𝐴(𝑒 11.1∗0.0876 − 1) + 4.153

9.747 = 𝐴(𝑒 .97236 − 1) = 1.6442𝐴 → 𝐴 = 5.928

𝐴 5.928 .0876𝑡
Taking the integral from 0 to 15.33 seconds, 𝑒 𝐵𝑡 + (𝑐 − 𝐴)𝑡|15.33
0 = 𝑒 + (4.153 − 5.928)𝑡|15.33
0 =
𝐵 .0876
67.67𝑒 .0876𝑡 − 1.775𝑡|15.33
0 = [259.187 − 27.211] − [67.67 − 0] = 231.976 − 67.67 = 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠
Therefore, the area under the loading curve is 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠.
Continuing with the above example, the unloading curve immediately following the loading curve (specifically, cycle 2 of
the group 1 cyclic extension endpoints and test speed 1) had an area of 128.02𝑁 ∗ 𝑚.
𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝐴𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠 − 128.02𝑁 ∗ 𝑠 36.386𝑁 ∗ 𝑠
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐻𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 = 100 ∗ = = = 22.08%
𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠 164.306𝑁 ∗ 𝑠

Stress Relaxation
Percent stress relaxation is defined in the context of cyclic loading as the percent decrease of the peak load from the 1st
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2 −𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 5
cycle to the 5th cycle. Therefore, % 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2
.

Example: In the specimen with the group 1 cyclic extension endpoints and test speed 1,
𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2 = 21.394𝑁 & 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 5 = 20.459 𝑁

21.394 𝑁 − 20.459 𝑁 0.935 𝑁

% 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ = 100 ∗ = 4.37%
20.394 𝑁 20.394 𝑁
Peak Stress
Peak stress equals the peak load over cross sectional area. Continuing with specimen 1 (same as above):

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 = 21.394𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 663.442𝑚𝑚2 = 6.634 ∗ 10−4 𝑚2

𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 21.394𝑁
𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = = = 32246.98𝑃𝑎 = 32.25𝐾𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 6.634 ∗ 10−4 𝑚2
Cortical Bone Stress Relaxation – Stress Relaxation, Peak Stress
Stress Relaxation
Percent stress relaxation is defined in the context of constant strain loading as the percent decrease of induced load from
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 −𝐿𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙
the initial value to the final value. Therefore, % 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙

Example: In compressive stress relaxation specimen 1 (group 1 extension endpoints, test speed 1),
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 13.997𝑁 & 𝐿𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 9.256𝑁

13.997𝑁 − 9.256𝑁 4.741 𝑁

% 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 100 ∗ = 100 ∗ = 33.87%
13.997𝑁 13.997 𝑁
Peak Stress
Peak stress equals the peak load over cross sectional area. Continuing with specimen 1 (same as above):

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 = 13.997𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 51.117𝑚𝑚2 = 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2

𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 13.997𝑁
𝜎𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = = = 273822.799𝑃𝑎 = 273.823𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2

Failure Test – Stiffness, Energy Absorbed

Stiffness
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
Stiffness (k) equals the yield load divided by the yield displacement; 𝑘 = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑

For the cortical bone, 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 650.6 𝑁 & 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 3.3 𝑚𝑚

650.6 𝑁
Therefore, 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑘 = 3.3 𝑚𝑚 = 197.151 N/mm

Energy Absorbed
Energy absorbed is defined as the area under the curve in units of 𝑁 ∗ 𝑚𝑚.
Using specialized image editing software, the area under the curve was determined and divided by a scaling factor to
convert from area in pixels to area in N*mm.
10 𝑚𝑚 100𝑁
Example: For failure of cortical bone, 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 = 52,906 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠, with scale of 67 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 (𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ) & 35 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 (𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ).

1000𝑁∗𝑚𝑚 1000𝑁∗𝑚𝑚
Multiplied the area scale is 2345 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠. Therefore, 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 = 52906 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠 ∗ 2345 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠
= 22,561𝑁 ∗ 𝑚𝑚

Verify (recalculate by hand) the properties determined by TestWorks: Modulus, Compressive Yield Strength,
Ultimate Strain, and Failure Stress/Strain
Modulus and Compressive Yield Strength
Modulus of elasticity in uniaxial compressive loading is the yield stress divided by the yield strain. Yield stress is equal to
compressive yield strength, so the yield strength was recalculated immediately prior to recalculating modulus.
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝛿𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = , 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐸) =
𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
Example: For the compressive failure of cortical bone,

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 650.6 𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙= 51.117𝑚𝑚2 = 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2 , 𝛿𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 3.3𝑚𝑚, 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 48.98 𝑚𝑚

650.6 𝑁 3.3 𝑚𝑚
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = −5 2
= 12,727,663 𝑃𝑎, 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = = .0673744
5.1117 ∗ 10 𝑚 48.98

12,727,663 𝑃𝑎
𝐸= = 188909496.6𝑃𝑎 = 188.909𝑀𝑃𝑎
0.0673744

Ultimate Strain
𝛿
Ultimate strain is equal to ultimate elongation divided by gage length. 𝜀𝑈𝐿𝑇 = 𝐿 𝑈𝐿𝑇 , at the point where 𝜎𝑈𝐿𝑇 is reached.
𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒

Example: For the compressive failure of cortical bone,

𝛿𝑈𝐿𝑇 = 29.27 𝑚𝑚 & 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 48.98 𝑚𝑚
29.27 𝑚𝑚
𝜀𝑈𝐿𝑇 = = 0.5976
48.98 𝑚𝑚
Failure Stress and Strain
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝛿𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝜎𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = , 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =
𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒

Example: For the compressive failure of cortical bone,

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = 997.401 𝑁, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙= 51.117𝑚𝑚2 = 5.1117 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2 , 𝛿𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 29.27𝑚𝑚, 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 48.98 𝑚𝑚
997.401 29.27𝑚𝑚
𝜎𝐹𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = −5 2
= 19,512,119𝑃𝑎 = 19.512𝑀𝑃𝑎 & 𝜀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = = 0.5976
5.1117 ∗ 10 𝑚 48.98 𝑚𝑚
Discussion

Effect of different test speeds

In three cases out of four, when the same extension endpoint group was used while the test speed was increased,

hysteresis, stress relaxation and peak load increased. Since the extension endpoint groups were maintained and the

comparisons were made between the same numbered cycles (in the case of hysteresis), the observed difference must be

attributed solely to the increase in strain rate. This matches our expectations that as strain rate increases, so does the

resistance of a viscoelastic material to deformation. Therefore, the modulus of elasticity E was proportional to the strain

rate, as were the characteristic phenomena associated with viscoelastic materials such as hysteresis and stress relaxation.

Effect of a larger compression endpoint

When the same test speed was maintained but the longer extension endpoint was increased, in all comparisons

both peak stress and hysteresis increased. In three cases out of four, with a doubling of the extension endpoint distance,

the stress exhibited a greater than twofold increase. This is markedly different from the behavior of artificial viscoelastic

materials such as polymers; however, this is in line with models for biological viscoelastic materials where the stress

strain relationship is best modeled by an exponential function. An exponential function predicted, and we observed, an

exponential increase in induced stress with an increase in strain.

Comparison of Bone viscoelasticity with Lab 4 material viscoelasticity

Generally, bone exhibits viscoelastic properties that were moderately viscoelastic. Bone exhibited less hysteresis

than did any of the materials for which hysteresis was determined in lab 4, which were aluminum and nylon. An

interesting comparison might have been made between the hysteresis of polyethylene and that of bone, but polyethylene

was only tested in stress relaxation in lab 4. Bone exhibited half as much percent stress relaxation in cyclic loading as did

nylon, but it had more than did aluminum in cyclic loading. In stress relaxation (60s hold time) testing, bone exhibited

much more percent stress relaxation than did steel or Douglas fir, but exhibited slightly less percent stress relaxation than

did polyethylene. Therefore, bone was characterized by intermediary viscoelasticity.

Effect of Density on Trabecular Bone properties

Density was indicative of the actual cross-sectional area of the trabecular bone. It had an order of magnitude

greater apparent or measurable cross-sectional area compared to the cortical and whole bone samples; however the actual

cross-sectional area was much smaller since the sample existed as porous structure composed of polyurethane (which

simulates trabecular bone). The actual cross-sectional area was unmeasurable but it is reflected somewhat in the much

lower density. The density is lower because of the pores in the structure as the holes contribute nothing to measured mass

– in fact, the holes lack mass. The mechanical properties of trabecular bone are likewise affected by the porosity of the

structure. The holes do not offer resistance to compression; rather they are areas lacking resistance to compression. The

lower modulus of elasticity implies that the material deforms assuming its cross-sectional area was solid, compared to

other materials which have higher moduli of elasticity. Therefore, the density is reflective of high porosity which

decreases the apparent moduli, as well as yield strength of the sample.

Comparison of trabecular and cortical bone mechanical behavior, including hysteresis

Trabecular bone had lesser percent stress relaxation over five cycles of loading, compared to the percent stress

relaxation exhibited by cortical bone over the 60 second hold time of the stress relaxation tests. This suggests that the

trabecular bone stayed within a small range of its linearly elastic region or that it was in general more elastic than cortical

bone.

Comparison of hysteresis among differing test speeds and compression points

In cyclical compression of cortical bone, percent hysteresis increased when the extension (compression) endpoints

were increased, which correlates with a material moving further out of its linearly elastic region. However, increasing the

test speed had mixed results with respect to the observed percent hysteresis. In one case the observed percent hysteresis

increased when the test speed was increased, but in another case the observed percent hysteresis decreased when the test

speed was increased.

This experiment was considerably more complex than previous ones, entailing a mixture of cyclic, stress

relaxation and failure testing of several different samples. The heterogeneity of the material samples presented difficulties

in conducting the experiment and some errors were either made unintentionally or were unavoidable. One simple error
made was the incorrect gage length being entered into the failure test for cortical bone – the gage length for whole bone

was entered in that case, and this ultimately resulted in incorrect TestWorks strain (such as yield strain, ultimate strain,

etc.). A second error encountered was the offset position of the cortical and whole bone with respect to the loading grips

(which compressed the samples). What ended up occurring in the course of the experiment was the bending, and then

shearing, of the samples, which somewhat compromised the fidelity of the test as being solely longitudinal. Yet another

error was the difficulty in obtaining representative dimensions for the tested samples.

The bone shapes were highly irregular, and while we attempted to use calipers to measure the dimensions, some

dimensions were measured incorrectly, and it is highly likely that the reported area for the cortical bone only has a small

portion actually completely composed of cortical bone – this is likely a large factor in the extremely small modulus and

yield stress reported for cortical bone in this experiment. Other errors included the minor and major radii varying along

the length of the bone, the internal radii of the whole bone being unexposed and unmeasurable with our tools, and the

mass of the bone marrow being included when taking the mass of the cortical and whole bone samples, which makes the

calculated bone densities for both cortical and whole bone.

Another interesting ‘error’ encountered in this lab was the discrepancy between experimentally determined and

theoretical values for trabecular bone. This is likely due to our inability to obtain the true cross-sectional area; the

apparent cross-sectional area of the trabecular bone sample is likely highly inflated compared to what the true cross-

sectional area is. The cross-sectional area is a critical value that is used in determining the yield stress and modulus of

elasticity of the trabecular bone. If this cross-sectional area is ‘inflated’ by our inability to subtract out the area of the

pores – as was the case in this lab – then one would expect the measured yield stress and modulus of elasticity to be lower

than their true values, and in fact they were to a misleadingly large extent. In addition, the random orientation of the

trabecular pores with respect to the loading face calls into question whether the sample was truly being compressed

uniaxially. In order to ensure pure uniaxial compression, the pores should be all longitudinally oriented parallel to the

direction of loading. However, in the sample tested the arrangement was random and each strand within the mesh of

polyurethane was loaded in a combination of longitudinal and transverse loading, depending on the individual strand’s

orientation relative to the direction of compression. Both the inability to measure the true cross-sectional area, as well as

the heterogeneity of the orientation of strands within the trabecular structure, mean that the conditions needed to ensure

the preciseness of the measured modulus and yield stress were likely not met.