4.2 Article

A conewise linear elasticity mixture model for the analysis of tension-compression nonlinearity in articular cartilage

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.1324669

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR043628, R01 AR043628-06, R29 AR043628, AR43628] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A biphasic mixture model is developed that can account for the observed tension: compression nonlinearity of cartilage by employing the continuum-based Conewise Linear Elasticity (CLE) model of Curnier et al. (J. Elasticity, 37, 1-38, 1995) to describe the solid phase of the mixture. In this first investigation, the orthotropic octantwise linear elasticity model was reduced to the more specialized case of cubic symmetry, to reduce the number of elastic constants from twelve to four. Confined and unconfined compression stress-relaxation, and torsional shear testing were performed oa each of nine bovine humeral head articular cartilage cylindrical plugs from 6 month old calves. Using the CLE model with cubic symmetry, the aggregate modulus in compression and axial permeability were obtained from confined compression (H-(A) =0.64+/-0.22 MPa, k(z)=3.62 +/-0.97X10(-16) m(4)/N .s, r(2) =0.95+/-0.03), the tensile modulus, compressive Poisson ratio, and radial permeability were obtained from unconfined compression (E(+=)Y12.75 +/-1.56 MPa, upsilon - =0.03 +/-0.01, k(r)=6.06+/-2.10X10(-16) m(4)/N .s, r(2) =0.99+/-0.00), and the shear modulus was obtained from torsional shear (mu =0.17+/-0.06 MPa). The model tvas also employed to pr-edict the interstitial fluid pressure successfully at the center of the cartilage plug in unconfined compression (r(2)=0.98+/-0.01). The results of this study demonstrate that the integration of the CLE model with the biphasic mixture theory can provide a model of cartilage that can successfully curve-fit three distinct testing configurations while producing material parameters consistent with previous reports in the literature. [S0148-0731 (00)00306-X].

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

4.2
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