See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351841155

Modeling the Cross-sectional Shape of the Long Bones Using the Superellipse

Conference Paper · May 2021

CITATIONS READS
0 177

1 author:

Luděk Spíchal
Czech Forestry Academy Trutnov
27 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Luděk Spíchal on 25 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MODELING THE CROSS-SECTIONAL SHAPE OF THE LONG BONES
USING THE SUPERELLIPSE

Luděk Spı́chal
Masaryk University, Faculty of Science
Kotlářská 2, Brno, Czech Republic
spichal@clatrutnov.cz

Abstract: The objective of this work was to compare two models (ellipse, superellipse), which can
describe the cross-sectional shape of the long animal bones. The samples of long bones of three
wildly living genera (wild boar, deer, roe deer) were collected. As the first result, it is demonstrated
that both single models do not fit the shape of the cross-section with sufficient precision. Because of
different irregularities disturbing the shape of the cross-section, the compound superellipse model,
performing better than both single models, is built.

Keywords: bone, humerus, cross-section, superellipse, nonlinear optimization.

INTRODUCTION

Let x and y denote the Cartesian coordinates in a plane R2 . The equation of the circle with the
center at the origin O of the radius r is given by

x2 + y 2 = 1,

the equation of the ellipse with the center at the origin O and two semi-axes of a, b (a 6= b) is given
by
 x 2  y 2
+ = 1.
a b
The equations mentioned above are well known for everyone who took part in some math course.

In the early 19th century Gabriel Lamé, a French mathematician, was concerned about the more
general equation [1]
x n y n
+ = 1, (1)
a b
where n ∈ R+ 0 . If he changed the value of the exponent n instead of the length of the axes a, b, he
obtained a wide spectrum of curves (Figure 1).
As we can see in Figure 1, for n = 2 the curves represent ellipses (or a circle for a = b). When
n decreases from 2 to 1, the ovals become more pointed at its ends (so-called subellipse) and for
n = 1 the graph is a parallelogram. When n is less than 1, then the sides of the curves become
increasingly more concave as n approaches to 0. If n is allowed to increase above 2, then the sides
of the curves become more and more flatter (so-called superellipse). The rectangle is a limit when
n approaches infinity [2].

1
 Fig. 1. Lamé ovals for different values of a, n (b = 6)
Source: own

1 The ellipse as a model of the cross-sectional shape of tree trunks

The mathematical curiosity for which we could consider the superellipse has recently obtained a
new use. The fact, overlooked in the past, is that tree trunks are rarely exactly circular on the cross-
section. Some authors involved in studying the cross-sectional shapes of tree trunks, the admixture
of wood mass, and so on, replaced in their models the circular cross-sectional shapes with elliptical
or even superelliptical ones.
Skatter and Høibø [3] tested models of the cross-sectional shape of tree trunks on a sample of
100 Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) logs and 106 Norway spruce (Picea abies L.) logs. Two of
the models were the 3-parametric circle model (the coordinates of the center x0 , y0 and the radius
r) and the 5-parametric ellipse model (the center coordinates, x0 , y0 , the length of the two principal
axes, a, b and the orientation of the principal axes, θ). These models were compared to the third
Fourier coefficient model, which had a variable number of parameters. For the same number of
parameters, the Fourier coefficient model was about as good as the two other models. With the
increasing number of parameters, the third model was in a perfect match with the real shape.
Skatter [4] compared models, which are used to scan the cross-sectional shape of tree trunks
and demonstrated the higher precision of elliptical models. The ellipse model has potential in
increasing the volume yield in sawmills compared to the circular model.
Saint-André and Leban [5] analyzed different elliptical models for describing the transverse
sections of Norway spruce logs and deduced that the compound ellipse (consisting of two arcs)
describes the disc shapes slightly better in comparison with a single ellipse model. Nevertheless,

2
because of the complexity of that model, they assume that the disc shape can be described by a
single ellipse with acceptable accuracy.
Shi et al. [8] built the superellipse model and showed that the superellipse describes the geo-
metric shape of tree rings better than the commonly used circle.
The mentioned articles, in principle, prefer elliptical models to circular ones, especially for more
accurate results of the calculations. The cross-sections of the long bones of quadrupedal mammals
(Figure 3) also often have an elliptical shape at mid-length. The limb bones are exposed to various
types of external and internal forces. The action of these forces is also influenced by the area of the
cross-section and the second moment of area of the cross-section. In such cases, the best possible
estimate of the cross-section dimensions can be significant.
The objective of the article is to show how to model the superellipse by a simple graphics program
(GeoGebra) and how to estimate the ellipse and superellipse parameters using SAS/STAT software.
The model of the compound superellipse is going to be introduced to get the best fitting curve. In
the end, we will investigate the accuracy of estimation using the sum of squared errors (SSE) of the
observed points and the predicted values for all used models.

2 The superellipse

2.1 The superellipse in GeoGebra

When modeling the superellipse in GeoGebra, we can use an implicit equation (1). For every
quarter of the superellipse, we write down the equation separately
 x n  y n
± + ± = 1,
a b
where a, b, n are positive numbers (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. The superellipse in GeoGebra

Source: own

2.2 Superellipse as a model of the cross-sectional shape of limb bones

To find the ellipse and the superellipse that best fit the observed data, we can minimize a function
that computes the sum of the squared distances (in the radial direction) between the observed data

3
and the predicted points along the closed curve. Because the center of the curve is unknown, we
have to fit in the case of the ellipse four parameters (x0 , y0 , a, b), and in the case of the superellipse
five parameters (x0 , y0 , a, b, n).
For given values [x0 , y0 ] we can center the observed coordinates [xi , yi ] by subtracting the co-
ordinates of the center point. By using the fact that Euclidean and polar coordinates are related
by
x = r (t) cos t,
y = r (t) sin t,
we can write down the predicted Euclidean coordinates of the superellipse

ui = x0 + r (ti ) cos (ti ) ,

vi = y0 + r (ti ) sin (ti ) ,

where  n n −1/n
cos ti sin ti
r(ti ) = + ,
a b
is a function with parameters a, b (semi-axes of superellipse), n is an exponent determining the
shape of the superellipse (n = 2 for ellipse), and the values of ti have been determined by the
condition
yi − y0
tan (ti ) = .
xi − x0

Fig. 3. The cross-section of wild boar’s humerus at mid-length

Source: own

If {[x1 , y1 ] , . . . , [xm , ym ]} are the observed ordered pairs, then the objective is to minimize the
radial distance between the predicted and observed values [7]
m
X
F (x0 , y0 , a, b, n) = (ui − xi )2 + (vi − yi )2 , (2)
i=1

where m is a number of observed points. The parameters of the equation (2) were estimated
using the trust-region method (nonlinear optimization method, the NLPTR call) in SAS/IML (SAS

4
Institute). This procedure computes an optimal value of the function using the initial guess of
parameters, which was obtained via the GeoGebra model of the superellipse. The ellipse and
superellipse that best fit the data are shown overlaid on the scatter plots of the observed data (Figure
4).

2.3 Optimizing of the cross-sectional shape of limb bones

The SAS programs were tested on the cross-sections of humeri of wild boar (Sus scropha L.), deer
(Cervus elaphus L.) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.). The photos of the cross-sections (Figure
3) with the scale applied were used to find the coordinates of the points located at the edge of the
cross-sections (Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 8). The location of photos was chosen so that the axes
of the ellipse forming the cross-section corresponded approximately to the coordinate axes. The
angular distance of the observed points at the edge of the cross-section was 10° (total of 36 points).
Because of the used method (the argument of the function arctangent must be different from zero),
each point with zero coordinate was substituted by another two points in which zero coordinate
was changed by adding/subtracting the value of one thousandth (data files in all models contained
40 points). As we can see in Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, the ellipse and
single superellipse models did not fit the planar coordinates with sustainable accuracy (Table 1).

Fig. 4. Fitted results to the cross-section of wild boar’s humerus (ellipse, left, n = 2; single
superellipse, right, n = 2, 17)
Source: own

3 The compound superellipse

The approaches used above were not able to take into account the deviations from the nominal
shape of the ellipse or superellipse. The disadvantage the mentioned models, arising from the
estimation of the parameters for the whole ellipse or superellipse, could be minimized by dividing
the cross-section into several parts and fitting each of them separately. The cross-sections of the
bones were divided by coordinate axes into four arcs, each of them consisting of ten observed
points. The center of each arc was fixed at the origin O. The SAS program estimated parameters
(a, b, n) for each arc of the superellipse separately.

5
 Fig. 5. Fitted result to the cross-section of wild boar’s humerus (compound superellipse)
Source: own

E SS CS
a 14, 7 14, 5 14, 6 14, 3 14, 3 14, 8
wild boar b 10, 0 9, 8 8, 8 8, 8 10, 8 10, 9
n 2, 00 2, 20 2, 17 2, 64 2, 03 2, 09
a 18, 2 18, 4 17, 9 18, 8 18, 8 18, 0
deer b 13, 2 13, 3 13, 6 13, 7 13, 0 13, 0
n 2, 00 1, 88 1, 83 1, 70 2, 07 1, 86
a 9, 1 9, 1 9, 2 9, 2 9, 1 9, 2
roe deer b 6, 8 6, 8 6, 4 6, 4 7, 2 7, 1
n 2, 00 1, 99 1, 85 2, 45 1, 82 1, 94
Tab. 1. The estimated parameters of the cross-sections (E ellipse, SS single superellipse, CS
compound superellipse; length of the semi-axes in mm)

As we can see in Figure 5, Figure 7, Figure 9 by using the compound superellipse there is better
conformity between the observed data and the predicted values (Table 1).

4 Measurement of model performance

In order to compare the models, the Sum of Square Errors (SSE), and the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) were calculated for all cross-sections using the following formula [5]
m X
X n
SSE = (rio − rie )2 ,
1 i
sP
m n
1 X 1 (rio − rie )2
RM SE = ,
m 1 n−p
where:

6
 - rio is the radius measured from the centre,
- rie is the estimated value of the radius rio ,
- m is the total number of the bone’s cross-sections,
- n is the number of points measured for one cross-section,
- p is the number of parameters used for each model.

Fig. 6. Fitted results to the cross-section of deer’s humerus (left: cross-section, right: ellipse)
Source: own

Fig. 7. Fitted results to the cross-section of deer’s humerus (left: single superellipse, right:
compound superellipse)
Source: own

The sustainability of the model to describe the shape of the cross-section generally decreases with
an increase in SSE. In the case, when two models did not have the same number of parameters, it
was used the following test (F -test)
SSEB −SSEA
pA −pB
Fo = SSEA
,
n−pA

where pA is the number of parameters for the model A, pB is the number of parameters for the model
B and n is the number of observations (here, 3 × 40). The calculated value of Fo was compared to

7
 Ellipse Single superellipse Compound superellipse
Number of parameters 4 5 3
2
SSE (cm ) 0, 09278 0, 08156 0, 00986
RMSE (cm) 0, 02891 0, 0271 0, 00933
Tab. 2. Results of fitting for the models

Fig. 8. Fitted results to the cross-section of roe deer’s humerus (left: cross-section, right: ellipse)
Source: own

the theoretical value given in Fisher’s table F (pA − pB , n − pA ). If Fo > F (pA − pB , n − pA ) then
the model A described the cross-sectional shape better than the model B [6].
The model of the compound superellipse is considerably better than two other models for both
calculated statistics (Table 2). By comparing the ellipse model (B) and the superellipse model (A)

Fo = 20, 33 > F (1, 115) = 3, 92

it follows that the model of the superellipse provides a slightly better description of the cross-
sectional shape than the ellipse (a significance level α = 0, 05) .

Supplement
SAS programs for generating Lamé curves and for fitting the ellipse, simple and compound su-
perellipse can be found online at:
https://www.clatrutnov.cz/index.php/cs/skola/dokumenty/category/78-spichal-ludek-mgr

CONCLUSION

The external shape of bone’s cross-section can be fitted by the superellipse equation (compound
superellipse) with high precision. The simulations in SAS confirmed that the optimization method
could produce reliable parameters estimates.

8
 Fig. 9. Fitted results to the cross-section of roe deer’s humerus (left: single superellipse, right:
compound superellipse)
Source: own

References

[1] Gielis, J. (2017). The Geometrical Beauty of Plants. Atlantis Press.

[2] Gardner, M. (1965). The superellipse: a curve that lies between the ellipse and the rectangle.
Scientific American, 213(3), 222–238.
[3] Skatter, S., Høibø, O., A. (1998). Cross-sectional shape models of Scots pine (Pinus
sylvestris) and Norway Spruce (Picea abies). Holz als Rob- und Werkstoff 56, 187–191.
[4] Skatter, S. (1998). Determination of cross-sectional shape of softwood logs from three x- ray
projections using an elliptical model. Holz als Rob- und Werkstoff 56, 179–186.
[5] Saint-André, L., Leban, J.-M. (2000). An elliptical model for tree ring shape in transverse
section. Methodology and case study on Norway Spruce. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 58,
368–374.
[6] http://www.socr.ucla.edu/applets.dir/f_table.html
[7] Wicklin, R. (2015). The spiral of splatter.
Available at: https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2015/06/11/
spiral-of-splatter.html
[8] Shi, P. J., Huang, J. G., Hui, C., Grissino-Mayer, H. D., Tardif, J. C., Zhai, L. H., Wang, F.
S., Li, B. L. (2015). Capturing spiral radial growth of conifers using the superellipse to model
tree-ring geometric shape. Front. Plant Sci. 6: 856.

View publication stats