4.7 Article

Biomechanical characterization of the passive response of the thoracic aorta in chronic hypoxic newborn lambs using an evolutionary strategy

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93267-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONICYT [2014-21140988]
  2. Dicyt-USACH
  3. FONDECYT [1170608, 1151119, 1201283]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study characterizes the passive structural mechanical behavior of the chronic hypoxic lamb thoracic aorta grown at high altitude through experiments and modeling, calibrating material parameters and predicting mechanical response under physiological conditions and systemic arterial hypertension. The novel use of evolutionary strategy and experimental tools provide a robust alternative for biomechanical characterizations.
The present study involves experiments and modelling aimed at characterizing the passive structural mechanical behavior of the chronic hypoxic lamb thoracic aorta, whose gestation, birth and postnatal period were carried at high altitude (3600 masl). To this end, the mechanical response was studied via tensile and pressurization tests. The tensile and pressurization tests measurements were used simultaneously to calibrate the material parameters of the Gasser-Holzapfel-Ogden (GHO) hyperelasctic anisotropic constitutive model through an analytical-numerical optimization procedure solved with an evolutionary strategy that guarantees a stable response of the model. The model and procedure of calibration adequately adjust to the material behavior in a wide deformation range with an appropriate physical description. The results of this study predict the mechanical response of the lamb thoracic aorta under generalized loading states like those that can occur in physiological conditions and/or in systemic arterial hypertension. Finally, the novel use of the evolutionary strategy, together with the set of experiments and tools used in this study, provide a robust alternative to validate biomechanical characterizations.

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

4.7
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