-
Something wrong with this record ?
Predictive capabilities of various constitutive models for arterial tissue
F. Schroeder, S. Polzer, M. Slažanský, V. Man, P. Skácel,
Language English Country Netherlands
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Aorta, Thoracic * MeSH
- Models, Biological * MeSH
- Biomechanical Phenomena MeSH
- Mechanical Phenomena * MeSH
- Tensile Strength MeSH
- Swine MeSH
- Materials Testing MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study is to validate some constitutive models by assessing their capabilities in describing and predicting uniaxial and biaxial behavior of porcine aortic tissue. METHODS: 14 samples from porcine aortas were used to perform 2 uniaxial and 5 biaxial tensile tests. Transversal strains were furthermore stored for uniaxial data. The experimental data were fitted by four constitutive models: Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden model (HGO), model based on generalized structure tensor (GST), Four-Fiber-Family model (FFF) and Microfiber model. Fitting was performed to uniaxial and biaxial data sets separately and descriptive capabilities of the models were compared. Their predictive capabilities were assessed in two ways. Firstly each model was fitted to biaxial data and its accuracy (in term of R2 and NRMSE) in prediction of both uniaxial responses was evaluated. Then this procedure was performed conversely: each model was fitted to both uniaxial tests and its accuracy in prediction of 5 biaxial responses was observed. RESULTS: Descriptive capabilities of all models were excellent. In predicting uniaxial response from biaxial data, microfiber model was the most accurate while the other models showed also reasonable accuracy. Microfiber and FFF models were capable to reasonably predict biaxial responses from uniaxial data while HGO and GST models failed completely in this task. CONCLUSIONS: HGO and GST models are not capable to predict biaxial arterial wall behavior while FFF model is the most robust of the investigated constitutive models. Knowledge of transversal strains in uniaxial tests improves robustness of constitutive models.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19028671
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190823095029.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190813s2018 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.035 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29220821
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Schroeder, Florian $u Department of Biofluid Mechanics, Technical University of Applied Sciences (OTH), Regensburg, Germany; Regensburg Center of Biomedical Engineering (RCBE), OTH and Universität Regensburg, Josef Engert Strasse 9, Biopark I, 93053 Regensburg, Germany. Electronic address: florian.schroeder@st.oth-regensburg.de.
- 245 10
- $a Predictive capabilities of various constitutive models for arterial tissue / $c F. Schroeder, S. Polzer, M. Slažanský, V. Man, P. Skácel,
- 520 9_
- $a INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study is to validate some constitutive models by assessing their capabilities in describing and predicting uniaxial and biaxial behavior of porcine aortic tissue. METHODS: 14 samples from porcine aortas were used to perform 2 uniaxial and 5 biaxial tensile tests. Transversal strains were furthermore stored for uniaxial data. The experimental data were fitted by four constitutive models: Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden model (HGO), model based on generalized structure tensor (GST), Four-Fiber-Family model (FFF) and Microfiber model. Fitting was performed to uniaxial and biaxial data sets separately and descriptive capabilities of the models were compared. Their predictive capabilities were assessed in two ways. Firstly each model was fitted to biaxial data and its accuracy (in term of R2 and NRMSE) in prediction of both uniaxial responses was evaluated. Then this procedure was performed conversely: each model was fitted to both uniaxial tests and its accuracy in prediction of 5 biaxial responses was observed. RESULTS: Descriptive capabilities of all models were excellent. In predicting uniaxial response from biaxial data, microfiber model was the most accurate while the other models showed also reasonable accuracy. Microfiber and FFF models were capable to reasonably predict biaxial responses from uniaxial data while HGO and GST models failed completely in this task. CONCLUSIONS: HGO and GST models are not capable to predict biaxial arterial wall behavior while FFF model is the most robust of the investigated constitutive models. Knowledge of transversal strains in uniaxial tests improves robustness of constitutive models.
- 650 _2
- $a zvířata $7 D000818
- 650 12
- $a aorta thoracica $7 D001013
- 650 _2
- $a biomechanika $7 D001696
- 650 _2
- $a testování materiálů $7 D008422
- 650 12
- $a mechanické jevy $7 D055595
- 650 12
- $a biologické modely $7 D008954
- 650 _2
- $a prasata $7 D013552
- 650 _2
- $a pevnost v tahu $7 D013718
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Polzer, Stanislav $u Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Applied Mechanics, VSB-Technical University Ostrava, 17.listopadu 15/2172, 708 33 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic. Electronic address: polzer@seznam.cz.
- 700 1_
- $a Slažanský, Martin $u Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: slazanskym@seznam.cz.
- 700 1_
- $a Man, Vojtěch $u Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: xmanv@seznam.cz.
- 700 1_
- $a Skácel, Pavel $u Institute of Solid Mechanics, Mechatronics and Biomechanics, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: skacy@email.cz.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00166961 $t Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials $x 1878-0180 $g Roč. 78, č. - (2018), s. 369-380
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29220821 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190813 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190823095243 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1433820 $s 1067131
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 78 $c - $d 369-380 $e 20171122 $i 1878-0180 $m Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials $n J Mech Behav Biomed Mater $x MED00166961
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20190813