The role of viscoelasticity of collagen fibers in articular cartilage: axial tension versus compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of viscoelasticity of collagen fibers in bovine articular cartilage was examined in compression and tension using stress relaxation measurements in the axial direction (normal to the articular surface). Experimentally, for a given axial strain, both peak and equilibrium loads were higher in tension than in compression, whereas stress relaxation was stronger in compression, as indicated by the higher peak-to-equilibrium ratios. A viscoelastic fibril-reinforced model including fluid flow was used for analysis of the experimental data. The collagen fibrillar matrix was assumed to be viscoelastic with a strain-dependent tensile modulus, and the nonfibrillar matrix was modeled as linearly elastic. For axial tension, collagen viscoelasticity was found to account for most of the stress relaxation, while the effects of fluid pressurization on the tensile stress were negligible. In contrast, for axial compression, the dominant mechanism for stress relaxation arose from fluid pressurization, while the associated relaxation in collagen fibers mainly resulted in an increase in radial strain. The effective Poisson's ratio, defined as the ratio of the radial and axial strains, was generally smaller in compression than in tension, and deviated from the true Poisson's ratio in tensile tests because of the frictional contacts between the specimen and the loading platens. Furthermore, lower collagen elasticity in the axial direction was observed than in the radial direction. This study illustrates the essential role of collagen viscoelasticity and interstitial fluid pressurization in the mechanical response of articular cartilage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".