4.6 Article

Biphasic analysis of rat brain slices under creep indentation shows nonlinear tension-compression behavior

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.043

关键词

Brain; Biphasic; Mechanical properties; Indentation; Computational model

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01NS063360]
  2. Army Research Office [W911NF-10-1-0276]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biphasic theory can provide a mechanistic description of deformation and transport phenomena in soft tissues, and has been used to model surgery and drug delivery in the brain for decades. Knowledge of corresponding mechanical properties of the brain is needed to accurately predict tissue deformation and flow transport in these applications. Previously in our group, creep indentation tests were conducted for multiple anatomical regions in acute rat brain tissue slices. In the current study, a biphasic finite element model of creep indentation was developed with which to compare these data. Considering the soft tissue structure of brain, the solid matrix was assumed to be composed of a neo-Hookean ground matrix reinforced by continuously distributed fibers that exhibits tension-compression nonlinearity during deformation. By fixing Poisson's ratio of the ground matrix, Young's modulus, fiber modulus and hydraulic permeability were estimated. Hydraulic permeability was found to be nearly independent of the properties of the solid matrix. Estimated modulus (40 Pa to 1.1 kPa for the ground matrix, 3.2-18.2 kPa for fibers) and hydraulic permeability (1.2- 5.5x10(-13) m(4)/N s) fell within an acceptable range compared with those in previous studies. Instantaneous indentation depth was dominated by tension provided by fibers, while the tissue response at equilibrium was sensitive to Poisson's ratio. Results of sensitivity analysis also point to the necessity of considering tension-compression nonlinearity in the solid phase when the biphasic material undergoes large creep deformation.

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

4.6
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