↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Validation of a small punch testing technique to characterize the mechanical behaviour of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene
Published in
Biomaterials, December 1997
DOI 10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00124-5
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The small punch or miniaturized disc bend test has been used successfully to characterize the ductility and fracture resistance of metals and ceramics with specimens measuring 0.5 mm in thickness. This study was performed to demonstrate the feasibility of performing small punch tests on implant grade ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). Large-deformation finite element simulations were developed and validated to explore the hypothesis that the macroscopic constitutive behaviour of UHMWPE may be inferred from a miniature specimen testing technique which can be used to characterize the ductility and work to failure for UHMWPE. The load-displacement curve was insensitive to cyclic preconditioning of the test specimen and only mildly sensitive to the loading rate. Furthermore, the initial slope of the small punch load-displacement curve was used to determine the elastic modulus of the UHMWPE with the help of the inverse finite element method. The ultimate goal of this research is to develop the capability to perform local measurements of material tensile and static fracture properties in as-manufactured, as-sterilized and as-retrieved UHMWPE components.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 40%
Materials Science 6 13%
Chemical Engineering 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2001.
All research outputs
#9,514,662
of 27,776,330 outputs
Outputs from Biomaterials
#5,094
of 11,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,231
of 101,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomaterials
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,776,330 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 101,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.