SPINE Volume 32, Number 16, pp E436 –E442
©2007, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
The Temperature-Dependent Viscoelasticity of Porcine
Lumbar Spine Ligaments
Cameron R. Bass, PhD,* Christopher J. Planchak, MS,* Robert S. Salzar, PhD,*
Scott R. Lucas, MS,* Karin A. Rafaels, BS,* Barry S. Shender, PhD,† and Glenn Paskoff, MS†
Study Design. A uniaxial tensile loading study of 13
lumbar porcine ligaments under varying environmental
temperature conditions.
Objectives. To investigate a possible temperature de-
pendence of the material behavior of porcine lumbar an-
terior longitudinal ligaments.
Summary of Background Data. Temperature depen-
dence of the mechanical material properties of ligament
has not been conclusively established.
Methods. The anterior longitudinal ligaments (ALLs)
from domestic pigs (n ⫽ 5) were loaded in tension to 20%
strain using a protocol that included fast ramp/hold and
sinusoidal tests. These ligaments were tested at temper-
atures of 37.8°C, 29.4°C, 21.1°C, 12.8°C, and 4.4°C. The
temperatures were controlled to within 0.6°C, and liga-
ment hydration was maintained with a humidifier inside
the test chamber and by spraying 0.9% saline onto the
ligament. A viscoelastic model was used to characterize
the force response of the ligaments.
Results. The testing indicated that the ALL has strong
temperature dependence. As temperature decreased, the
peak forces increased for similar input peak strains and
strain rates. The relaxation of the ligaments was similar at
each temperature and showed only weak temperature
dependence. Predicted behavior using the viscoelastic
model compared well with the actual data (R2 values
ranging from 0.89 to 0.99). A regression analysis per-
formed on the viscoelastic model coefficients confirmed
that relaxation coefficients were only weakly temperature
dependent while the instantaneous elastic function coef-
ficients were strongly temperature dependent.
Conclusions. The experiment demonstrated that the
viscoelastic mechanical response of the porcine ligament
is dependent on the temperature at which it is tested; the
force response of the ligament increased as the temper-
ature decreased. This conclusion also applies to human
ligaments owing to material and structural similarity. This
result settles a controversy on the temperature depen-
dence of ligament in the available literature. The ligament
viscoelastic model shows a significant temperature de-
pendence on the material properties; instantaneous elas-
tic force was clearly temperature dependent while the
relaxation response was only weakly temperature depen-
dent. This result suggests that temperature dependence
should be considered when testing ligaments and
From the *Center for Applied Biomechanics, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA; and †NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD.
Acknowledgment date: August 24, 2006. First revision date: February
22, 2007. Acceptance date: February 23, 2007.
The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical
device(s)/drug(s).
Federal funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any
form have been or will be received from a commercial party related
directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Robert S. Salzar, PhD,
Center for Applied Biomechanics, University of Virginia, 1011 Linden
Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22902; E-mail: Salzar@virginia.edu
E436
developing material models for in vivo force response,
and further suggests that previously published material
property values derived from room temperature testing
may not adequately represent in vivo response. These
findings have clinical relevance in the increased suscep-
tibility of ligamentous injury in the cold and in assessing
the mechanical behavior of cold extremities and extrem-
ities with limited vascular perfusion such as those of the
elderly.
Key words: temperature, viscoelastic, lumbar, liga-
ments, porcine. Spine 2007;32:E436 –E442
Mechanical testing of human and representative nonhu-
man biologic materials, including lumbar spinal liga-
ments, has historically been performed at room temper-
ature. However, human ligamentous tissues operate at
body temperature. This study was performed to investi-
gate the primary hypothesis that the mechanical material
response of ligamentous biologic material from the lum-
bar spine is temperature dependent and that this behav-
ior may be characterized using a viscoelastic material
model.1 The implications of a strong temperature depen-
dence of lumbar spinal material properties are signifi-
cant. In a number of previous investigations, material
models of human and animal tissue have been incorpo-
rated into computer models for human response in au-
tomobile crashes and other potentially lethal events.2 In
such models, the global human response is dependent on
local mechanical material properties of tissues, including
ligamentous tissue. If ligamentous response is strongly
temperature dependent, the resulting computational
models may be inaccurate and result in an increased risk
of injury. Automobile crashes and similarly high acceler-
ation/deceleration events typically have high strain rates;
therefore, the ligaments in this study were strained to
20% of their initial length at an average rate of 78 ⫾ 10
seconds⫺1.
The temperature dependence of ligaments has not
been established. Dorlot et al tested the temperature de-
pendence of the dog anterior cruciate ligament by per-
forming tensile tests at temperatures ranging from 23°C
to 45°C over an extended period.3 Dorlot et al concluded
that temperature did not have a significant effect on the
load-elongation curves of the ligaments, although there
is little information on the testing performed. Later, Has-
berry and Pearcy studied the lumbar interspinous liga-
ments of sheep by performing extension tests at temper-
atures ranging from 19°C to 46°C.4 They concluded that
the mechanical properties of ligaments are not affected
by temperature, between room temperature and body
 Temperture-Dependent Porcine Lumbar Ligaments • Bass et al E437
temperature. However, the peak forces of the ligaments
decreased as the ligament temperature was increased
from room temperature to body temperature. In con-
trast, Woo et al investigated the temperature dependence
of dog medial collateral ligaments (MCLs). Noninjuri-
ous cyclic extension tests were performed at tempera-
tures ranging from 2°C to 37°C. with 1 to 2 mm of
extension (3.5% maximum strain) at a strain rate of 0.33
seconds⫺1.5 Woo et al5 found that the ligaments were
temperature dependent and that the tensile load was in-
versely proportional to the set ligament strain level with
respect to temperature. They also found that the peak
forces displayed relaxation during cyclic loading. The
relaxation was shown to be temperature dependent as
the relaxation of the ligament decreased when the tem-
perature was decreased. An additional study was per-
formed by Lam et al6 using rabbit MCL. Tests were
performed in cyclic extension for temperatures ranging
between 25°C and 55°C with a peak displacement of
0.68 mm and a strain rate of 0.167 seconds⫺1. These
ligaments were found to be temperature dependent. In
agreement with Woo et al,5 Lam et al6 found the liga-
ments to be temperature dependent and that force relax-
ation for each cycle increased with temperature.
Although these tests were performed on porcine liga-
ments, previous studies have related the mechanical be-
havior of human longitudinal ligaments with porcine
specimens. Hukins et al presented porcine ligament stiff-
ness, stress, and failure results, with evidence that human
longitudinal ligaments behave in a similar manner.7 This
study notes that the substructure of porcine longitudinal
ligaments is very similar to human tissue. They also note
that the modes of ligament failure are identical in both
human and porcine specimens. In addition, this study
demonstrated that both human and porcine longitudinal
ligaments store energy in a similar manner by comparing
hysteresis loops.
Other studies have found porcine ligaments to be a
good model for human ligamentous tissue. In a previous
study, it has been shown that porcine ligamentous tissue
behaves similarly to human ligamentous tissue both
qualitatively as well as quantitatively, as long as the
properties are scaled by vertebral depth and width. In a
study by Lucas,8 viscoelastic behavior of porcine and
human cervical spinal ligaments is compared. This study
found that the mechanical behavior of porcine longitu-
dinal ligaments is similar to human ligaments across dif-
ferent cervical levels and different ligament types.
In this study, a viscoelastic model with separable time-
dependent relaxation and displacement-dependent in-
stantaneous elastic force behavior was used to determine
the temperature-dependent components of the porcine
uniaxial ligament mechanical response. In a previous
study, porcine model ligaments have been shown to pro-
vide an acceptable representation of human viscoelastic
ligamentous material response.8 The ligaments were
tested using an environmentally controlled uniaxial test
fixture at high rates typical of automobile impact. The
goal of this study was to determine the temperature-
dependent high-rate viscoelastic mechanical properties
of lumbar spinal ligaments.
Materials and Methods
Spines from 5 domestic pigs (Sus scrofa: 4 to 4.5 months old
with a mean live weight of 82.6 kg) were harvested from freshly
killed specimens and were cryogenically frozen. Woo et al
showed that postmortem freezing of rabbit MCLs has little
effect on the biomechanical properties of ligaments.9 Immedi-
ately before preparation, the spine was allowed to thaw to
room temperature. The lumbar region of the porcine spine was
transected into functional spinal units (FSU) at 3 levels: T15–
L1, L2–L3, and L4 –L5. The anterior longitudinal ligament
(ALL) was then isolated from the FSUs by cutting through the
vertebral body along the coronal plane. Hydration of the ALL
was maintained by placing a 0.9% saline soaked gauze on the
ligament throughout the preparation process.
Each vertebral body was potted, using a fast curing resin
(R1 Fast Cast, Goldenwest Manufacturing, Cedar Ridge, OH)
in a separate metallic cup with the ALL spanning the distance
between the 2 cups. To provide hard anchor points for the
mounting procedure, small screws were inserted into the pos-
terior aspect of each vertebral body. The potted ligament was
mounted in a force test machine (Instron, Inc. #8874, Canton,
MA) for uniaxial extension tests; the ligament was oriented so
that the vertebral endplates were parallel, the vertebral bodies
were aligned so that they were parallel, and the ALL was
aligned so that it was perpendicular to the vertebral endplates.
To warm the ligaments to the initial test temperature, the
ligaments, in a sealed plastic bag, were first placed in a temper-
ature controlled bath set to 37.8°C. The intervertebral disc was
then carefully transected to isolate the ligament. The potted
ligament was then mounted to the test fixture and pretensioned
to a 2 N load. This procedure establishes a repeatable starting
point for each ligament and is similar to that used by Lucas.8
After the preload, the initial length of the ligament was mea-
sured between the inferior and superior endplates of the verte-
bral bodies.
The ligaments were tested in an environmental chamber
capable of maintaining humidity at ⬃100% RH and tempera-
ture between ⫺30°C and 45°C (Figure 1). The temperature
inside the chamber was monitored using “K” type thermocou-
ples (OMEGA Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT) at 2 locations
inside the chamber: one in the ambient air and another on the
surface of the ligament. The temperature on the surface of the
ligament was controlled to within 0.6°C. Additional ligament
hydration beyond chamber hydration was provided by spray-
ing a mist of 0.9% saline onto the ligament between tests. The
ligaments were strained to 20% of their initial length at an
average rate of 78 seconds⫺1 using a protocol that included fast
ramp/hold tests and sinusoidal cyclic tests.
The test series consisted of a battery of tests at 5 different
temperatures steps in order from 37.8°C, 29.4°C, 21.1°C,
12.8°C, and 4.4°C. Before testing, specimens were maintained
at rest for a 30-minute period at each condition to allow the
ligament temperature to equilibrate with the chamber. At each
temperature, a 20% preconditioning strain fast ramp and hold,
a 20% strain fast ramp and hold, and a 20% oscillatory strain
was applied to the ligament. Each fast ramp and hold test was
held for 60 seconds. The oscillatory test consisted of 2 fre-
quency inputs, 20 cycles at 20 Hz and 20 cycles at 2 Hz, with a
E438 Spine • Volume 32 • Number 16 • 2007
Figure 1. Instron test fixture.
total duration of 11 seconds. The ligaments were allowed to
relax for 10 minutes between each preconditioning and ramp
test.
Data Analysis. In this study, the time-force history of the
ligament was initially modeled using a linear viscoelastic model
based on the Boltzmann superposition principal.10 The form of
this model is:
t
冕
dF␧共␦共␶兲兲
F共␦,t兲 ⫽ G共t ⫺ ␶兲 d␶ (1)
d␶
0
where F is the force response at time t, F␧ is the instantaneous
elastic function, G(t) is the reduced relaxation function, ␦ is the
displacement, and ␶ is the change in time. This hereditary inte-
gral accounts for the previous time history of the ligament and
is derived from the force response of the ligament. Based on
previous work, the ligaments are assumed to have linear elastic
response to 20% strain. So, the instantaneous elastic function is
solely a function of displacement, while the reduced relaxation
function is solely a function of time. The relaxation function is
normalized so that the sum of the relaxation coefficients equals
one.
In Equation 1, the instantaneous elastic force Fe is assumed
to be linear as
Fe ⫽ A␦ (2)
and the reduced relaxation function G(t) is defined as
冘
n
G共t兲 ⫽ G⬁ ⫹ Gne ⫺ ␤nt (3)
1
where A is the instantaneous elastic parameter, G⬁ is the steady
state relaxation coefficient, Gn are the relaxation coefficients
expressed as a Prony series, and ␤n is the inverse of a defined
time constant for each of the relaxation components.
The time constants of the reduced relaxation function were
set to powers of 10 starting at 1 millisecond, as shown in Table
1.8 By using the same time constants for each of the individual
ligament models, the relaxation function coefficients can be
averaged to create a general model to describe the mean behav-
ior of the ligaments.
The model’s coefficients were then optimized numerically
using a direct integration technique.11 For this optimization,
the objective was to minimize the sum squared error between
the actual force and the predicted model force.
Statistical Analysis. The fit of the viscoelastic model to the
experimental fast-ramp data was evaluated using the R2 coef-
ficient. The model was then validated by comparing the re-
sponse of the model to data from the sinusoidal tests.
The coefficients from the model fits were statistically an-
alyzed using 3 methods. First, the model coefficients deter-
mined from each ramp test were plotted in box and whisker
plots to assess the variability of the data. Second, a Student
t test was performed on the mean values of each viscoelastic
coefficient to assess whether the change in each coefficient
between temperatures was statistically significant. For this
assessment, statistical significance was assumed to hold for
␣ ⫽ 0.05 if P ⬍ 0.05. Third, a regression analysis was per-
formed using the slopes of lines generated using the temper-
ature-dependent viscoelastic model coefficients for each lig-
ament model. The slope of the line represents the degree of
temperature dependence while the “no slope” reference rep-
resents no temperature dependence. The null hypothesis of
the regression is that coefficients are temperature dependent.
If the P value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is
rejected and the coefficients are considered not temperature
dependent with 95% certainty.
Table 1. Relaxation Time Constants
Relaxation Coefficient ␤ ⫽ ␶⫺1 (Hz)
G1 1
G2 10
G3 100
G4 1000
G⬁ 0
 Temperture-Dependent Porcine Lumbar Ligaments • Bass et al E439
Figure 2. Representative force-time histories.
Results
Force Response
Fast ramp and sine tests were performed at 20% strain
for 13 ALL ligaments at temperatures of 37.8°C, 29.4°C,
21.1°C, 12.8°C, and 4.4°C. A representative plot of the
ramp force versus time is shown in Figure 2. Repeated
tests produced approximately the same ramp and hold
displacement, and the force response of the ligaments
was only dependent on the independent parameter, tem-
perature. As the temperature of the ligament decreased,
larger peak forces were observed. Previous testing by
Lucas8 showed that repeated application of 20% strain
did not result in changes in the characteristics of the
ligament. This was confirmed in this study as repeated
tests produced similar force responses. Further, the 20%
strain level in this study averaged 0.61 mm, which is less
than the reported failure strain in the human ALL. The
ligaments also appeared to relax at similar rates at each
temperature despite the changing levels of displacement
and force. Finally, repeated tests at 21.1°C showed sim-
ilar force response to the fast ramp and hold input. Sim-
ilar behavior was seen in repeated tests at 4.4°C.
A representative force response to sinusoidal input
displacement is shown in Figure 3. To check if the QLV
Figure 3. Representative force response of the sinusoidal dis-
placement test.
Figure 4. Plot of a representative viscoelastic model fit.
model predicted the ligament sinusoidal response, the
model coefficients of the fast ramp displacement test
were used to model the force response of the sinusoidal
displacement. The displacement was shown to be repeat-
able. The resulting force response was clearly dependent
on temperature, similar to the fast ramp and hold tests.
As the temperature decreased, the peak force of the lig-
ament increased.
Model Fit
Each force response curve was modeled using the vis-
coelastic model and the model coefficients were deter-
mined. An example model force, shown in Figure 4, is a
good fit to the ligament experimental data. For the entire
dataset, the average R2 values of the model fits for each
temperature shown in Figure 5 range from 0.92 and 0.98
with mean values that increase slightly as the tempera-
ture decreases. The oscillatory tests were modeled using
the experimental data and the coefficients determined
from the ramp tests. Good correspondence was found
between the model and the oscillatory tests with average
R2 values that range from 0.85 to 0.99.
Viscoelastic Model Coefficients
Average viscoelastic model coefficients are shown in Ta-
ble 2. The relaxation behavior of the ligaments did not
have strong temperature dependence. The G1 coefficient
Figure 5. Goodness of fit for the models.
E440 Spine • Volume 32 • Number 16 • 2007
Table 2. Average Coefficients for All Tests
Temperature (°C) G1 G2
37.8 0.0385 ⫾ 0.01 0.0351 ⫾ 0.021
29.4 0.0352 ⫾ 0.01 0.0361 ⫾ 0.022
21.1 0.0255 ⫾ 0.01 0.0350 ⫾ 0.016
12.8 0.0218 ⫾ 0.007 0.0346 ⫾ 0.014
4.4 0.0193 ⫾ 0.007 0.0350 ⫾ 0.012
has a ␤ of 1 Hz that corresponds to a timescale of 1000
milliseconds. The average value of the G1 coefficients are
less than 4% of the total relaxation response and in-
crease with temperature with an average slope of 6E-
4°C⫺1 (R2 ⫽ 0.96). Consequently, the G1 coefficients
have small temperature dependence and have a small
effect on the relaxation function and resulting viscoelas-
tic model. The G2 coefficients have a ␤ of 10 Hz that
corresponds to a 100 milliseconds timescale. The average
value of the G2 coefficients are less than 4% of the total
relaxation response and increase with temperature with
an average slope of 9E-6°C⫺1 (R2 ⫽ 0.40). The G2 co-
efficient has a small effect on the total relaxation behav-
ior of the ligament as it is less than 4% of the normalized
relaxation response. The G3 relaxation coefficients have
a ␤ of 100 Hz that corresponds to a 10-millisecond time-
scale. The average value of the G3 coefficients is less than
4% of the total relaxation response and increase with
temperature with an average slope of 9E-4°C⫺1 (R2 ⫽
0.99). The G4 coefficients have a ␤ of 1000 Hz that
corresponds to a 1-millisecond timescale. The average
value of the G4 coefficients is approximately 64% of the
total relaxation response and increase with temperature
with an average slope of 4E-4°C⫺1 (R2 ⫽ 0.23). The G⬁
coefficients represent the long-term behavior of the liga-
ments over the timescale tested (60 seconds). The aver-
age value of the G⬁ coefficients is approximately 27% of
the total relaxation response and decreases with temper-
ature with an average slope of ⫺2E-3°C⫺1 (R2 ⫽ 0.91).
Since the G4 coefficient is the largest of the relaxation
coefficients, the relaxation behavior of the ligament is
Figure 6. Representative plot of the exponential instantaneous
elastic force for one ligament.
G3 G4 Ginf A (N/mm)
0.0422 ⫾ 0.035 0.657 ⫾ 0.048 0.227 ⫾ 0.034 216 ⫾ 65
0.0378 ⫾ 0.046 0.646 ⫾ 0.056 0.245 ⫾ 0.042 221 ⫾ 70
0.0279 ⫾ 0.037 0.632 ⫾ 0.028 0.280 ⫾ 0.031 299 ⫾ 78
0.0209 ⫾ .03 0.637 ⫾ 0.019 0.286 ⫾ 0.024 361 ⫾ 93
0.0132 ⫾ 0.024 0.642 ⫾ 0.019 0.290 ⫾ 0.021 434 ⫾ 110
dominated by this coefficient and has small temperature
dependence, especially for short-term relaxation. The G⬁
coefficient has a larger influence on the relaxation re-
sponse than the G1, G2, and G3 coefficients with the G⬁
coefficient offsetting the temperature dependent behavior
of G1 and G3 (generally increasing with temperature)
over a large portion of the relaxation spectrum.
An example instantaneous elastic response for a single
ligament is shown in Figure 6. As the temperature of the
ligament decreased, the slope of the instantaneous elastic
response increased. Since the instantaneous elastic re-
sponse of the ligaments is approximately linear, the in-
stantaneous elastic stiffness of the ligaments at each tem-
perature may be calculated by finding the slope of
instantaneous elastic function versus displacement as
shown in Figure 7. The average values for this stiffness,
A, are shown in Table 2. As the temperature of the liga-
ment decreased, the value of the stiffness increased over
100%. Thus, the instantaneous elastic response is
strongly temperature dependent. The slope of this depen-
dence is smaller near 37.8°C than near 4.4°C (Table 3).
Statistics
A representative box and whisker plot by spinal level and
temperature is shown for the G2 coefficients in Figure 8.
The box represents the average of the coefficients with
standard deviation where the line through the middle of
the box is the average value. The outliers are the “whis-
kers” and are seen extending from the box. The repre-
sentative G2 and G3 plots show several outliers, pre-
dominantly tests involving ligaments 11 and 12.
The relaxation coefficient G1 shows statistically sig-
nificant differences in coefficient values for temperature
Figure 7. Stiffness comparison of the T15–L1 spinal level.

Table 3. Average Peak Force as a Percentage of
Room Temperature Peak Force
Current Study
Woo et al
Temperature (Fast Ramp-Hold) Fast Ramp-Hold Quasistatic
High (37°C Woo, 37.8°C 83 73
current study)
Low (2.2°C Woo, 4.4°C 130 140
current study)
differences over 4.4°C. The G2 is not statistically signif-
icantly different between any temperatures. The coeffi-
cient G3 only shows a statistically significant difference
for the largest temperature variation tested. G4 is not
statistically significantly different between any tempera-
tures. Further, G⬁ was found to be temperature depen-
dent only for combinations with temperature differences
greater than 16.8°C. Finally, the instantaneous elastic
coefficient, A, showed a statistically significant difference
between all temperatures except for temperatures be-
tween 29.4°C and 37.8°C.
The regression analysis found that the slopes of the
viscoelastic relaxation coefficients G1, G3, and G⬁ were
temperature dependent while the G2 and G4 coefficients
were not temperature dependent. This result is similar to
the result found using the Student t test. Each of the
temperature-dependent relaxation coefficients (G1, G3,
and G⬁) has small slopes at each level, indicating that the
temperature dependence is weak. In contrast, the instan-
taneous elastic coefficient, A, was found to be strongly
temperature dependent with a large slope relative to the
relaxation coefficients.
Figure 8. Box and whisker plot of
G2 coefficient.
Temperture-Dependent Porcine Lumbar Ligaments • Bass et al E441
Discussion
The primary hypothesis that the porcine lumbar ALL is
temperature dependent is supported by the results of this
study. The force response of the ligament increased as the
temperature decreased. A viscoelastic model was suc-
59 cessfully used to represent the response of the ligament
with a good numerical fit. In this viscoelastic model, the
150
instantaneous elastic force was clearly temperature de-
pendent, although the reduced relaxation function was
generally only weakly dependent on changes in temper-
ature. This finding settles a controversy on the tempera-
ture dependence of ligaments in the available literature
and may be contrasted with findings on the temperature
dependence of relaxation response reported by Woo et
al5 and Lamb et al.6 In this study, the short time G4
coefficient of the reduced relaxation function had the
greatest influence on the relaxation behavior in the vis-
coelastic model and was found to be only weakly tem-
perature dependent. The quasistatic G⬁ coefficient also
had a large influence in the model but also had only weak
temperature dependence.
There are several important implications of the temper-
ature dependence of porcine ligaments found in this study.
First, as the structure, constituents, and viscoelastic behav-
ior of porcine ligaments and human ligaments are simi-
lar,7,8 these conclusions apply to human ligament in vivo
force response. Second, computer models predicting
stresses, strains, and range of motion of humans are based
on material properties determined in laboratory tests that
have historically been performed at room temperature. As
these soft tissue properties may dramatically change with
temperature, the measured properties will not adequately
E442 Spine • Volume 32 • Number 16 • 2007
represent in vivo response, especially dynamic response. So,
the computed internal states of stress and strain will not
represent in vivo human response. Third, this finding has
clinical relevance in the increased susceptibility to injury,
particularly extremity ligament injuries, in the cold. For
ligaments that are substantially colder than mean human
physiologic temperature, failure stress is reached at sub-
stantially lower strain levels than for warm ligaments. Also,
the temperature dependence of ligaments will influence
clinical evaluation of mechanical behavior in cold extrem-
ities and in extremities with limited vascular perfusion such
as those of the elderly and may explain a portion of range of
motion limitations in such patients.
Key Points
● Anterior longitudinal ligament material proper-
ties are temperature dependent.
● Anterior longitudinal ligaments behave vis-
coelastically.
● Future tissue testing should consider material
property temperature dependence.
References
1. Woo SL, Gomez MA, Akeson WH. The time and history-dependent vis-
coelastic properties of canine medial collateral ligament. J Biomech Eng
1981;103:293– 8.
2. Stemper BD, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA. Effect of head restraint backset on
head-neck kinematics in whiplash. Accid Anal Prev 2006;38:317–23.
3. Dorlot JM, Ait Ba Sidi M, Tremblay GM, et al. Load elongation behavior of
the canine anterior cruciate ligament. J Biomech Eng 1980;102:190 –3.
4. Hasberry S, Pearcy MJ. Temperature dependence of the tensile properties
of interspinous ligaments of sheep. J Biomed Eng 1986;8.1:62– 6.
5. Woo SL-Y, Lee TQ, Gomez MA, et al. Temperature dependent behavior of
the canine medial collateral ligament. J Biomech Eng 1987;109:68 –71.
6. Lam TC, Thomas CG, Shrive NG, et al. The effects of temperature on the
viscoelastic properties of the rabbit medial collateral ligament. J Biomech
Eng 1990;112:147–52.
7. Huskins DWL, Kirby MC, Sikoryn TA, et al. Comparison of structure, me-
chanical properties, and functions of lumbar spinal ligaments. Spine 1990;
15:787–95.
8. Lucas SR. Viscoelastic Characterization of Cervical Spinal Ligaments [Mas-
ters thesis]. University of Virginia, 2004.
9. Woo SL, Orlando CA, Camp JF, et al. Effects of postmortem storage by
freezing on ligament tensile behavior. J Biomech 1986;19.5:399 – 404.
10. Fung YC. Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. New
York: Springer-Verlag; 1981.
11. Darvish KK, Takhounts EG, et al. A nonlinear viscoelastic model for polyure-
thane foams. SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 1999.
12. Pintar F, Yoganandan N, Myers T, et al. Biomechanical properties of human
lumbar spine ligaments. J Biomech 1992;25.11:1351– 6.