4.5 Article

The fiber orientation in the coronary arterial wall at physiological loading evaluated with a two-fiber constitutive model

期刊

BIOMECHANICS AND MODELING IN MECHANOBIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 3-4, 页码 533-542

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10237-011-0331-1

关键词

Collagen fiber orientation; Parameter estimation; Coronary arteries; Netting analysis

资金

  1. Dutch Technology Foundation STW [SmartSiP 10046]
  2. Philips Research
  3. St. Jude Medical.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A patient-specific mechanical description of the coronary arterial wall is indispensable for individualized diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. A way to determine the artery's mechanical properties is to fit the parameters of a constitutive model to patient-specific experimental data. Clinical data, however, essentially lack information about the stress-free geometry of an artery, which is necessary for constitutive modeling. In previous research, it has been shown that a way to circumvent this problem is to impose extra modeling constraints on the parameter estimation procedure. In this study, we propose a new modeling constraint concerning the in-situ fiber orientation (beta (phys)). beta (phys), which is a major contributor to the arterial stress-strain behavior, was determined for porcine and human coronary arteries using a mixed numerical-experimental method. The in-situ situation was mimicked using in-vitro experiments at a physiological axial pre-stretch, in which pressure-radius and pressure-axial force were measured. A single-layered, hyperelastic, thick-walled, two-fiber material model was accurately fitted to the experimental data, enabling the computation of stress, strain, and fiber orientation. beta (phys) was found to be almost equal for all vessels measured (36.4 +/- 0.3)A degrees, which theoretically can be explained using netting analysis. In further research, this finding can be used as an extra modeling constraint in parameter estimation from clinical data.

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

4.5
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