Shape Factor Associated with Hierarchical Structure of

Bones

MEEN 475-202 Materials in Design

Professor Shadi Balawi

November 22, 2019

Prepared by:

Joanna Ringhofer ​JR 

ABSTRACT
Understanding the mechanical properties of natural materials can aid in the innovation
and development of new materials in response to modern industrial demands. The composition
of a bone, a natural material, is hierarchical in nature- the formation of the microstructure in a
bone reflects that of its macrostructure. The following report studies the atomic makeup of bone
material by modeling (using CAD software) and fabricating (by 3D printing) a three-dimensional
repeating unit cell. The various different shapes corresponding to bones in a human body add
complexity to this analysis, however a shape factor was determined specifically for a long,
rod-like bone susceptible to bending or buckling. Considering external stimuli that a body may
be exposed to, the primary material properties that were relevant in the derivation of the
appropriate material indices include strength and toughness; these properties respond to the
protective function of the skeletal structure. Material indices were derived to compare the bone
model with the appropriate material, which in this study may be rigid polymer foams, bamboo,
or carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Because of the available equipment for the manufactured
samples, compression tests were performed on each sample and force and displacement data
were collected to deem the hierarchical cross section as the shape with the best performance at
the lightest weight.
OBJECTIVES
Hierarchical materials are unique in that they have a microstructure that reflects the shape
of their macrostructure. Bone, a natural hierarchical material, is analyzed in this project in an
effort to determine an appropriate shape factor to represent its material structure. The final shape
factor derived will consider the long, rod-like shape of the selected bone compared against a
square-shaped cross section, the neutral reference shape. In doing so, SolidWorks 3D CAD
design software will be utilized to model the repeating unit cell found in the bone material.
Because bone is a hierarchical material, the unit cell will reflect the micro and macrostructure of
the material. The MEEN 3D printing lab in the J. Cain Building at Texas A&M University will
be used to fabricate 3 samples with 100% infill of the replicated shape. Using additive
manufacturing to fabricate multiple samples will allow for scrutiny of the physical model relative
to itself and to other common shapes. Potential problems that could arise throughout the
completion of these objectives may occur in manufacturing, such as loose tolerances associated
with the printed plastic material interfering with the intended assembly of the repeating unit cell.
Dimensions will be adjusted to reduce the effects of this issue. In addition, oversimplification of
the model will be avoided to derive a unique shape factor representative of a specific human
bone- such as the femur.

RELEVANT PROPERTIES
The relevant mechanical properties that will be considered in this analysis will be decided
based on the unique function of natural bone. Bones serve many purposes; the primary function
of the skeletal structure is to provide structural support for the human body and protect vital
organs. This hierarchical material is also unique in the fact that, unlike many inorganic materials,
bones can heal themselves through production of necessary blood cells. An appropriate balance
is required between properties in order to comply with this intended function of the structure.
Consideration of material indices becomes important in this regard. For instance, in order to
provide support and sustain the weight of the body, strength is an important material property.
Bones must also be tough, absorbing sudden energy that a body may experience, in order to
prevent fracture within or on the surface of the material. Stiffness of the material should also be
considered so as to prevent excess deflection when the body experiences external impacts. These
properties are important while considering the fact that bones must also be lightweight in nature
so as not to impose excess burdens in terms of weight on a body in motion.

MATERIAL INDICES
The derivation of relevant material indices is an important driving factor of design in
order to select the appropriate representative material. Therefore, the function, objective,
constraints, and free variables of this analysis are summarized in Table 1 below as the first step
for arriving at a useful mathematical expression. The design of the repeating unit cell for the
hierarchical cross section is limited by strength and stiffness. With the protective structural
function of the bone, the objective for deriving the material indices is to minimize mass, with the
cross sectional area of the repeating unit cell as the free variable.
 Table 1: ​Design Requirements for Hierarchical Bone
Function Bone

Objective Minimize mass

Constraints Strength
Stiffness

Free Variables Cross sectional area

In addition to the requirements set forth by the table, the appropriate shape factor must be
derived and considered in the material indices since the shape of the hierarchical design is open
ended. Because the original cross section chosen was from that of a femur, the shape of the
repeating unit cell is cylindrical, thus having a circular cross section. Since each repeating unit
cell is modeled with differences, it is important to note that the shape factor used was for an
all-encompassing solid, cylindrical shape. While this may not be the case in fabrication, it
provides a close approximation because of the large portions of filled area in each unit cell. The
shape factor, by definition, compares the shape to a solid square cross section. Using this fact,
along with the tabulated requirements, the resulting material indices are:

(ϕB e E)1/2
Stiffness-limited index: M = ρ Equation (1)

(ϕB f σ)2/3
Strength-limited index: M = ρ Equation (2)

Supporting calculations for the derivation of these material indices are shown in Appendix A.
The corresponding shape factor used for the stiffness limited index, which takes into
consideration both microstructure and macrostructure, was calculated to be 0.9119. That of the
strength limited design was calculated to be 0.7162.

MATERIAL SELECTION
While the cross section was chosen based on bone material, the material indices were
derived with the intention of choosing materials that best meet the strength and stiffness
requirements while minimizing mass for the chosen shape. The chosen materials will represent
macrostructural and microstructural compositions that can be modeled to perform in a manner
similar to that of a human bone. Figures 1B and 2B from Appendix B demonstrate the charts and
guidelines utilized to narrow the material selection [1]. Referencing the Young’s modulus vs.
(ϕ e E)1/2
Density chart for stiffness limited design, a parallel line from the index M = B ρ was drawn
and moved from the upper leftmost corner of the diagram to the lower right direction. In doing
so, the first materials the line came into contact with were rigid polymer foams. These materials
should be considered because of their similarities to natural bone in terms of rigidity and
lightness. Next, bamboo can be chosen as a natural material. Bamboo may be preferred because
of a higher Young’s modulus than the foams. However, density is correspondingly higher as
well. A ceramic such as Boron Carbide should be identified as a material candidate in the
analysis, although its brittleness may not be preferred for a tough design. Analyzing the Strength
vs. Density chart for a strength limited design, a similar process can be conducted for the
(ϕ f σ)2/3
material index M = B ρ . In this instance, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers are a leading
material for a strong yet light design. Fibers composites provide a unique strength that may be
useful in modeling the hierarchical structure of a femur. Rigid polymer foams are, again, relevant
and practical for the modeling of the hierarchical bone because of their high strength to density
ratio. Wood is also a suitable candidate as a natural material for the analysis, providing strength
across grains with regards to a comparatively low density.

3D PRINTING MANUFACTURING PARAMETERS

In order to fabricate representative samples of the repeating unit cell, the manufacturing
parameters must first be established for 3D printing. Figures 3B-5B in Appendix B illustrate the
proposed designs for manufacturing with 100% infill. The thickness of each sample is set to 1.5”,
with a 5” diameter. These dimensions were chosen to be large enough in order to allow for future
bending tests on each sample. However, they must be small enough so that printing in the 3D
printers at the MEEN facilities is possible. The proposed sample in Figure 5B (Cross Section 3)
shows a true hierarchical structure, in which the macrostructure and microstructure are
concentric circles that form ring-like connections. For comparison, a similarly patterned shape is
depicted in Figure 4B (Cross Section 2). However, the circles in the latter sample are holes in the
main cylindrical shape rather than concentric rings. Figure 3B (Cross Section 1) provides a
unique representation with circular holes of multiple sizes. The hierarchy in this shape has more
“levels” than the other two. With these three samples, bending tests will be conducted in order to
determine the most efficient hierarchical shape for a bone.

3D PRINTING PROCESS
In order to fabricate three repeating unit cells representing the bone structure, the MEEN
3D printing facility on the third floor of the J. Cain building was used. Polylactic acid, known as
PLA, was the plastic filament used to fabricate each cell. The scale of each sample was not
changed from the SolidWorks models; the dimension of each cross section remained at 1.5”
thick and 5” in diameter. The total fabrication time was just over 31 hours for a process in which
100% infill was applied. By using these parameters, the resulting samples were produced, as
seen in Figures 1, 2, and 3 below.
Figure 1: ​Hierarchical Sample with Various Hole Sizes (Cross Section 1)

Figure 2: ​Hierarchical Sample with Patterned Holes (Cross Section 2)

 Figure 3: ​Shelled Hierarchical Sample (Cross Section 3)

Inspection of the samples leads to peculiar findings in terms of the quality of production. Cross
sections 2 and 3, which are symmetrical and consistent in circular pattern, have cleaner finishes.
Meanwhile, it can be observed in cross section 1 that there are loose filament ends in many of the
circular holes. This can be attributed to a lack of symmetry- the motion of the printer was less
fluid since there existed no simple pattern to represent the model. The differences in quality of
the product does not affect results. Once printed, the weight of each sample was taken. The
resulting weights, in grams, are tabulated below in Table 2. It is evident that the heaviest sample
was cross section 2, as expected because the inner section is the most solid out of the three. Cross
sections 1 and 3 are similar in weight, with cross section 3 being the most lightweight sample at
223.851 g.

Table 2: ​Weights of Fabricated Specimen

Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3

256.253 g 379.421 g 223.851 g

RESULTS
The force (kN) vs. displacement (mm) results experienced by each cross sectional shape
are summarized in Figure 4 below. Cross section 1, 2, and 3 (labeled in the legend of the graph)
correspond to the shapes pictured in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
 Figure 4​: Compression Test Results

The results were presented in terms of the raw data collected for the sake of comparison
and in compliance with the scope of the project. Since a compression test was performed on the
cross section oriented vertically rather than with the flat face lying on the compression stand
(refer to Figure 5 below), the data is presented in terms of the original parameters rather than
stress and strain. Calculating the corresponding stresses from the force distribution would require
knowledge of the cross sectional area of the sample parallel to the horizontal plates of the press.
Because of the orientation of the circle and the irregularity of the shape created by the printed
pattern, this cross sectional area changes along the vertical axis of the circle and as the sample is
compressed. Therefore, the results of the deformation of each specimen will be compared as
presented in Figure 4.

Figure 5: ​Compression Test Set-Up

By observing the data in Figure 4 from each compression test, it is evident that each
sample deformed in a unique manner. Cross section 1 had the most interesting distribution in
terms of force against displacement. Because of the random placement and large number of
circular holes within the shape, the force that the sample experienced fluctuates greatly in a
wave-like pattern before fracture occurs at a point. The fact that some of the holes were located
very near the edge of the macrostructure, creating thin sectors, did not help in making the
structure strong. The distribution of this sample is similar to that of a layered composite. With
composites such as CFRP, individual layers may fail before the entire structure fails, which helps
the microstructure withstand larger loads as the microstructure is altered. Unlike the other two
cross sections tested, the fracture experienced by cross section 1 was not as sudden or
“explosive.”
Cross section 2 withstood the largest force and deflected the least prior to failure. This
was expected because the cross section was the most solid of the three samples, making it also
the heaviest. Failure occurred for this sample in a sudden manner; the sample was broken in half
with a significant amount of kinetic energy. This distribution was similar to the stress-strain
curve for a ceramic or glass. The vertical line at the end of the data can be neglected because the
sample had fractured at that instance; therefore, this comparison is supported by the fact that the
fracture was brittle in nature.
Meanwhile, cross section 3 experienced the largest amount of displacement before
fracture occurred, although the force at failure was relatively low. Since the cross section of this
sample was truly hierarchical, it was expected that the structure would withstand the most
deformation. However, it was also expected that the structure would be stronger [2]. Deviation
from this expectation may be attributed to the orientation of the sample when placed in the press.
Rather than aligning the concentric circles vertically with the press (as if the large center circle
were stacked between two of the smaller edge circles), the cross section was oriented in a
position where a gap lay between circles- which may be deemed weaker for the structure. The
distribution for cross section 3 can be compared to that of a polymer or thermoplastic, or even an
elastomer because of the large amount of deflection before failing at what would equate to a low
stress.
It is important to note that direct comparisons cannot be made between the 3 cross
sections solely based on the results in Figure 4 because of differences in the mass of each
sample. As mentioned, while cross section 2 withstood the greatest force, it weighed
significantly more than the other cross sections. Therefore, an appropriate balance must be found
between mass and strength in order to consider a cross section as “best” for the intended
application. Equations 1 and 2, representing the material indices with appropriate shape factors,
are useful when deciding which material is ideal for samples of the same shape (in this case
considered cylindrical in microstructure and macrostructure). However, this project requires
choosing the best shape for the same material. Therefore, the reciprocal of the shape factor can
be taken to determine which sample is best [1]. Because the samples were tested in compression
rather than bending, however, as was the scenario when the material indices and shape factors
were derived, the compression data would not correspond with the indices derived for a bending
application. This is discussed further in depth in the Future Improvements section of this report.
For the bone experiencing compression, it can be determined that cross section 3, the
shelled and patterned hierarchical sample, would be desired. This is because it is the most
lightweight sample while providing the desired protection for the human body, taking the longest
to fail of the three samples and being strong with respect to its weight.
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
If this project were to be conducted again, there are a few changes that could have been
made in manufacturing and testing to obtain more relevant and accurate results. For instance,
because the original intent was to test the samples under bending, a longer rod-like shape could
have been printed and subject to a 3 point bending test. However, because each cross section
represents a unit cell, the samples were designed and printed as flat cylindrical shapes. Because
of the nature of these shapes, it was speculated that a compression test with the orientation as
described previously would be most suitable for the study in order to model a real-life scenario a
human bone could be susceptible to. In this case, however, the bones would be crushed rather
than bent. In the future, the test could also be done keeping the mass of each cross section the
same rather than the dimensions.

REFERENCES
[1] Ashby, M. F. (2019), ​Materials Selection in Mechanical Design.​ Fourth Edition. Burlington,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 235, 236, 246

[2] Lakes, Roderic. “Materials with Structural Hierarchy.” ​University of Wisconsin

APPENDIX
A. Sample Calculations
B. Figures

Figure 1B: ​Young’s Modulus vs. Density Chart for Material Selection [1]

Figure 2B: ​Strength vs. Density Chart for Material Selection [1]
Figure 3B: ​Hierarchical Sample Model with Various Hole Sizes (Cross Section 1)

Figure 4B: ​Hierarchical Sample Model with Patterned Holes (Cross Section 2)
Figure 5B: ​Shelled Hierarchical Sample Model (Cross Section 3)