Review| Volume 27, ISSUE 10, P973-978, December 2012

Tolerance of the lumbar spine to shear: A review and recommended exposure limits



      The lumbar spine may experience significant shear forces during occupational tasks due to the force of gravity acting on the upper body when bending the trunk forward, or when performing tasks involving pushing or pulling. Shear force limits of 1000 N and 500 N have been recommended by previous authors for maximum permissible limit and action limit, respectively.


      The present paper reviews literature in terms of shear tolerance (ultimate shear stress and fatigue life in shear stress) of the lumbar spine and develops recommended limits based on results of studies examining shear loading of human motion segments. Weibull analysis was used to assess fatigue failure data to estimate distributions of failure at different percentages of ultimate shear stress.


      Based on Weibull analysis of fatigue failure data from the best available data, a 1000 N shear limit would appear acceptable for occasional exposure to shear loading (≤100 loadings/day); however, a 700 N limit would appear appropriate for repetitive shear loading (100–1000 loadings/day) for most workers.


      Results of the current analysis support the 1000 N limit for shear stress, but for a rather limited number of cycles (<100 per day). Due to the logarithmic nature of the fatigue failure curve, a 700 N shear limit would appear to be acceptable for frequent shear loadings (100–1000 per day). This value is slightly higher than the action limit of 500 N previously recommended.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Adams M.A.
        • Green T.P.
        • Dolan P.
        The strength in anterior bending of lumbar intervertebral discs.
        Spine. 1994; 19: 2197-2203
        • Adams M.A.
        • Bogduk N.
        • Burton K.
        • Dolan P.
        The Biomechanics of Back Pain.
        second ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh2006
        • Beadon K.
        • Johnston J.D.
        • Siggers K.
        • Itshayek E.
        • Cripton P.A.
        A repeatable ex vivo model of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.
        Spine. 2008; 33: 2387-2393
        • Begeman P.C.
        • Visarius H.
        • Nolte L.P.
        • Prasad P.
        Viscoelastic Shear Responses of the Cadaver and Hybrid III Lumbar Response.
        in: 38th Stapp Car Crash Conference (Ft.Lauderdale, FL). 1994 (14 pp.)
        • Bisschop A.
        • Mullender M.D.
        • Kingma I.
        • Jiya T.U.
        • van der Veen A.J.
        • Roos J.C.
        • et al.
        The impact of bone mineral density and disc degeneration on shear strength and stiffness of the lumbar spine following laminectomy.
        Eur. Spine J. 2012; 21: 530-536
        • Bogduk N.
        Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum.
        third ed. Churchill Livingstone, New York1997
        • Brinckmann P.
        • Biggemann M.
        • Helweg D.
        Fatigue fracture of human lumbar vertebrae.
        Clin. Biomech. 1988; 3: S1-S23
        • Cyron B.M.
        • Hutton W.C.
        The fatigue strength of the lumbar neural arch in spondylolysis.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1978; 60-B: 234-238
        • Cyron B.M.
        • Hutton W.C.
        The behaviour of the lumbar intervertebral disc under repetitive forces.
        Int. Orthop. 1981; 5: 203-207
        • Cyron B.M.
        • Hutton W.C.
        • Troup J.D.
        Spondylolytic fractures.
        J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1976; 58-B: 462-466
        • Frei H.
        • Oxland T.R.
        • Nolte L.P.
        Thoracolumbar spine mechanics contrasted under compression and shear loading.
        J. Orthop. Res. 2002; 20: 1333-1338
        • Gallagher S.
        • Heberger J.
        Examining the interaction on musculoskeletal disorder risk: a systematic literature review.
        Hum. Factors. 2012; (Accessed 4 September 2012)
        • Gallagher S.
        • Marras W.S.
        • Litsky A.S.
        • Burr D.
        Torso flexion loads and fatigue failure of human lumbosacral motion segments.
        Spine. 2005; 30: 2265-2273
        • Gallagher S.
        • Marras W.S.
        • Litsky A.S.
        • Burr D.
        An exploratory study of loading and morphometric factors associated with specific failure modes in fatigue testing of lumbar motion segments.
        Clin. Biomech. 2006; 21: 228-234
        • Knapik G.G.
        • Marras W.S.
        Spine loading at different lumbar levels during pushing and pulling.
        Ergonomics. 2009; 52: 60-70
        • McGill S.M.
        • Norman R.W.
        • Yingling V.R.
        • Wells R.W.
        • Neumann P.
        Shear Happens! Suggested Guidelines for Ergonomists to Reduce the Risk of Low Back Injury from Shear Loading.
        in: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada (HFAC), Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 1998: 157-161
        • Miller J.A.
        • Schultz A.B.
        • Warwick D.N.
        • Spencer D.L.
        Mechanical properties of lumbar spine motion segments under large loads.
        J. Biomech. 1986; 19: 79-84
        • Nash C.D.
        ASME Publication 66-W A/BHF-3 — Fatigue of Self-healing Structure: A generalized Theory of Fatigue failure.
        in: ASME — American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1966 (4 pp.)
        • National Research Council & Institute of Medicine [NRC-IOM]
        Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities.
        National Academy Press, Washington, DC2001
        • Nelson W.
        Applied Life Data Analysis.
        John Wiley & Sons, New York1982
        • Norman R.
        • Wells R.
        • Neumann P.
        • Frank J.
        • Shannon H.
        • Kerr M.
        • et al.
        A comparison of peak vs. cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry.
        Clin. Biomech. 1998; 13: 561-573
        • Patwardhan A.
        • Ghanayem A.
        • Simonds J.
        • Hodges S.
        • Voronov L.
        • Paxinos O.
        • et al.
        An experimental model of adult-onset slip progression in isthmic spondylolisthesis.
        St. Heal. T. 2002; 91: 322-324
        • Schechtman H.
        • Bader D.L.
        In vitro fatigue of human tendons.
        J. Biomech. 1997; 30: 829-835
        • Snook S.H.
        • Campanelli R.A.
        • Hart J.W.
        A study of three preventive approaches to low back injury.
        J. Occup. Med. 1978; 20: 478-481
        • Stone R.
        Fatigue life estimates using Goodman Diagrams.
        (Retrieved August 17, 2012 from)
        • Waters T.A.
        • Putz-Anderson V.
        • Garg A.
        • Fine L.J.
        Revised NIOSH equation of the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks.
        Ergonomics. 1993; 36: 749-776
        • Yingling V.R.
        • McGill S.M.
        Anterior shear of spinal motion segments. Kinematics, kinetics, and resultant injuries observed in a porcine model.
        Spine. 1999; 24: 1882-1889
        • Yingling V.R.
        • McGill S.M.
        Mechanical properties and failure mechanics of the spine under posterior shear load: observations from a porcine model.
        J. Spinal Disord. 1999; 12: 501-508