4.6 Article

Elastic behavior of brain simulants in comparison to porcine brain at different loading velocities

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.10.026

关键词

Blunt force injury; Brain simulant; Loading velocity dependent material properties; Porcine brain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blunt force impacts to the head and the resulting internal force transmission to the brain and other cranial tissue are difficult to measure. To model blunt force impact scenarios, the compressive properties resembling tissue elasticity are of importance. Therefore, this study investigated and compared the elastic behavior of gelatin, alginate, agar/glycerol and agar/glycerol/water simulant materials to that of porcine brain in a fresh and unfixed condition. Specimens, 10 x 10 x 10 mm(3), were fabricated and tested at 22 degrees C, apart from gelatin which was conditioned to 4 degrees C prior to testing. For comparison, fresh porcine brains were sourced and prepared to the same dimensions as the simulants. Specimens underwent compression tests at crosshead displacement rates of 2.5, 10 and 16 mm s(-1) (equivalent to strain rates of 0.25, 1 and 1.6 s(-1)), obtaining apparent elastic moduli values at different strain rate intervals (0-0.2, 0.2-0.4 and 0.4-0.5). The results of this study indicate that overall all simulant materials had an apparent elastic moduli similar in magnitude across all strain ranges compared to brain, even though comparatively higher, especially the apparent elastic moduli values of alginate. In conclusion, while agar/glycerol/water and agar/glycerol had similar apparent elastic moduli in magnitude and the closest apparent elastic moduli in the initial strain range (E-1), gelatin showed the most similar values to fresh porcine brain at the transitional (E-2) and higher strain range (E-3). The simulant materials and the fresh porcine brain exhibited strain rate dependent behavior, with increasing elastic moduli upon increasing loading velocities.

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