4.2 Article

Failure of the Porcine Ascending Aorta: Multidirectional Experiments and a Unifying Microstructural Model

Publisher

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4035264

Keywords

biomechanics; failure; peel; shear

Funding

  1. NIH [R01-EB005813]
  2. University of Minnesota (UMN) Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship
  3. ARCS Scholar Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ascending thoracic aorta is poorly understood mechanically, especially its risk of dissection. To make better predictions of dissection risk, more information about the multidimensional failure behavior of the tissue is needed, and this information must be incorporated into an appropriate theoretical/computational model. Toward the creation of such a model, uniaxial, equibiaxial, peel, and shear lap tests were performed on healthy porcine ascending aorta samples. Uniaxial and equibiaxial tests showed anisotropy with greater stiffness and strength in the circumferential direction. Shear lap tests showed catastrophic failure at shear stresses (150-200 kPa) much lower than uniaxial tests (750-2500 kPa), consistent with the low peel tension (similar to 60 mN/mm). A novel multiscale computational model, including both prefailure and failure mechanics of the aorta, was developed. The microstructural part of the model included contributions from a collagen-reinforced elastin sheet and interlamellar connections representing fibrillin and smooth muscle. Components were represented as nonlinear fibers that failed at a critical stretch. Multiscale simulations of the different experiments were performed, and the model, appropriately specified, agreed well with all experimental data, representing a uniquely complete structure-based description of aorta mechanics. In addition, our experiments and model demonstrate the very low strength of the aorta in radial shear, suggesting an important possible mechanism for aortic dissection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available