4.3 Article

Graphene oxide/poly(acrylic acid)/gelatin nanocomposite hydrogel: Experimental and numerical validation of hyperelastic model

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.02.015

关键词

Graphene oxide nanosheet; Poly(acrylic acid); Gelatin; Constitutive equations; Finite element

资金

  1. Maziar University [921007-IV-478]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Owing to excellent thermal and mechanical properties, graphene-based nanomaterials have recently attracted intensive attention for a wide range of applications, including biosensors, bioseparation, drug release vehicle, and tissue engineering. In this study, the effects of graphene oxide nanosheet (GONS) content on the linear (tensile strength and strain) and nonlinear (hyperelastic coefficients) mechanical properties of poly(acrylic acid) (PAA)/gelatin (Gel) hydrogels are evaluated. The GUNS with different content (0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 wt.%) is added into the prepared PAA/Gel hydrogels and composite hydrogels are subjected to a series of tensile and stress relaxation tests. Hyperelastic strain energy density functions (SEDFs) are calibrated using uniaxial experimental data. The potential ability of different hyperelastic constitutive equations (Neo-Hookean, Yeoh, and Mooney Rivlin) to define the nonlinear mechanical behavior of hydrogels is verified by finite element (FE) simulations. The results show that the tensile strength (71%) and elongation at break (26%) of composite hydrogels are significantly increased by the addition of GUNS (0.3 wt.%). The experimental data is well fitted with those predicted by the FE models. The Yeoh material model accurately defines the nonlinear behavior of hydrogels which can be used for further biomechanical simulations of hydrogels. This finding might have implications not only for the improvement of the mechanical properties of composite hydrogels but also for the fabrication of polymeric substrate materials suitable for tissue engineering applications. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据