Comparisons of planar and tubular biaxial tensile testing protocols of the same porcine coronary arteries

Joseph T. Keyes, Danielle R. Lockwood, Urs Utzinger, Leonardo G. Montilla, Russell S Witte, Jonathan P Vande Geest

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To identify the orthotropic biomechanical behavior of arteries, researchers typically perform stretch-pressure-inflation tests on tube-form arteries or planar biaxial testing of splayed sections. We examined variations in finite element simulations (FESs) driven from planar or tubular testing of the same coronary arteries to determine what differences exist when picking one testing technique vs. another. Arteries were tested in tube-form first, then tested in planar-form, and fit to a Fung-type strain energy density function. Afterwards, arteries were modeled via finite element analysis looking at stress and displacement behavior in different scenarios (e.g., tube FESs with tube- or planar-driven constitutive models). When performing FESs of tube inflation from a planar-driven constitutive model, pressure-diameter results had an error of 12.3% compared to pressure-inflation data. Circumferential stresses were different between tube- and planar-driven pressure-inflation models by 50.4% with the planar-driven model having higher stresses. This reduced to 3.9% when rolling the sample to a tube first with planar-driven properties, then inflating with tubular-driven properties. Microstructure showed primarily axial orientation in the tubular and opening-angle configurations. There was a shift towards the circumferential direction upon flattening of 8.0. There was also noticeable collagen uncrimping in the flattened tissue.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1579-1591
Number of pages13
JournalAnnals of Biomedical Engineering
Volume41
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

Tensile testing
Economic Inflation
Coronary Vessels
Swine
Arteries
Pressure
Constitutive models
Testing
Finite Element Analysis
Strain energy
Collagen
Probability density function
Research Personnel
Tissue
Finite element method
Microstructure

Keywords

  • Anisotropic
  • Collagen
  • Elastin
  • Inflation
  • Microstructure
  • Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparisons of planar and tubular biaxial tensile testing protocols of the same porcine coronary arteries. / Keyes, Joseph T.; Lockwood, Danielle R.; Utzinger, Urs; Montilla, Leonardo G.; Witte, Russell S; Vande Geest, Jonathan P.

In: Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 7, 07.2013, p. 1579-1591.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6f2021f87ad54d228e7c446c30381193,
title = "Comparisons of planar and tubular biaxial tensile testing protocols of the same porcine coronary arteries",
abstract = "To identify the orthotropic biomechanical behavior of arteries, researchers typically perform stretch-pressure-inflation tests on tube-form arteries or planar biaxial testing of splayed sections. We examined variations in finite element simulations (FESs) driven from planar or tubular testing of the same coronary arteries to determine what differences exist when picking one testing technique vs. another. Arteries were tested in tube-form first, then tested in planar-form, and fit to a Fung-type strain energy density function. Afterwards, arteries were modeled via finite element analysis looking at stress and displacement behavior in different scenarios (e.g., tube FESs with tube- or planar-driven constitutive models). When performing FESs of tube inflation from a planar-driven constitutive model, pressure-diameter results had an error of 12.3{\%} compared to pressure-inflation data. Circumferential stresses were different between tube- and planar-driven pressure-inflation models by 50.4{\%} with the planar-driven model having higher stresses. This reduced to 3.9{\%} when rolling the sample to a tube first with planar-driven properties, then inflating with tubular-driven properties. Microstructure showed primarily axial orientation in the tubular and opening-angle configurations. There was a shift towards the circumferential direction upon flattening of 8.0. There was also noticeable collagen uncrimping in the flattened tissue.",
keywords = "Anisotropic, Collagen, Elastin, Inflation, Microstructure, Pressure",
author = "Keyes, {Joseph T.} and Lockwood, {Danielle R.} and Urs Utzinger and Montilla, {Leonardo G.} and Witte, {Russell S} and {Vande Geest}, {Jonathan P}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s10439-012-0679-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1579--1591",
journal = "Annals of Biomedical Engineering",
issn = "0090-6964",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons of planar and tubular biaxial tensile testing protocols of the same porcine coronary arteries

AU - Keyes, Joseph T.

AU - Lockwood, Danielle R.

AU - Utzinger, Urs

AU - Montilla, Leonardo G.

AU - Witte, Russell S

AU - Vande Geest, Jonathan P

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - To identify the orthotropic biomechanical behavior of arteries, researchers typically perform stretch-pressure-inflation tests on tube-form arteries or planar biaxial testing of splayed sections. We examined variations in finite element simulations (FESs) driven from planar or tubular testing of the same coronary arteries to determine what differences exist when picking one testing technique vs. another. Arteries were tested in tube-form first, then tested in planar-form, and fit to a Fung-type strain energy density function. Afterwards, arteries were modeled via finite element analysis looking at stress and displacement behavior in different scenarios (e.g., tube FESs with tube- or planar-driven constitutive models). When performing FESs of tube inflation from a planar-driven constitutive model, pressure-diameter results had an error of 12.3% compared to pressure-inflation data. Circumferential stresses were different between tube- and planar-driven pressure-inflation models by 50.4% with the planar-driven model having higher stresses. This reduced to 3.9% when rolling the sample to a tube first with planar-driven properties, then inflating with tubular-driven properties. Microstructure showed primarily axial orientation in the tubular and opening-angle configurations. There was a shift towards the circumferential direction upon flattening of 8.0. There was also noticeable collagen uncrimping in the flattened tissue.

AB - To identify the orthotropic biomechanical behavior of arteries, researchers typically perform stretch-pressure-inflation tests on tube-form arteries or planar biaxial testing of splayed sections. We examined variations in finite element simulations (FESs) driven from planar or tubular testing of the same coronary arteries to determine what differences exist when picking one testing technique vs. another. Arteries were tested in tube-form first, then tested in planar-form, and fit to a Fung-type strain energy density function. Afterwards, arteries were modeled via finite element analysis looking at stress and displacement behavior in different scenarios (e.g., tube FESs with tube- or planar-driven constitutive models). When performing FESs of tube inflation from a planar-driven constitutive model, pressure-diameter results had an error of 12.3% compared to pressure-inflation data. Circumferential stresses were different between tube- and planar-driven pressure-inflation models by 50.4% with the planar-driven model having higher stresses. This reduced to 3.9% when rolling the sample to a tube first with planar-driven properties, then inflating with tubular-driven properties. Microstructure showed primarily axial orientation in the tubular and opening-angle configurations. There was a shift towards the circumferential direction upon flattening of 8.0. There was also noticeable collagen uncrimping in the flattened tissue.

KW - Anisotropic

KW - Collagen

KW - Elastin

KW - Inflation

KW - Microstructure

KW - Pressure

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879419740&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879419740&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10439-012-0679-0

DO - 10.1007/s10439-012-0679-0

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 1579

EP - 1591

JO - Annals of Biomedical Engineering

JF - Annals of Biomedical Engineering

SN - 0090-6964

IS - 7

ER -