TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two model frameworks for fiber dispersion in the elasticity of soft biological tissues

AU - Holzapfel, Gerhard

AU - Ogden, Ray W.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This study compares two models that are used to describe the elastic properties of fiber-reinforced materials with dispersed fibers, in particular some soft biological tissues such as arterial walls and cartilages. The two model approaches involve different constitutive frameworks, one being based on a generalized structure tensor (GST) and the other on the method of angular integration (AI). By using two representative examples, with the same number of parameters for each model, it is shown that the predictions of the two models are virtually identical for a significant range of large deformations, which contradicts conclusions contained in several papers that are based on faulty analysis. Additionally, each of the models is fitted to sets of uniaxial data from the circumferential and axial directions of the adventitia of a human aorta, both models providing excellent agreement with the data. While the predictions of the two models are comparable and exclusion of compressed fibers can be accommodated by either model, it is well known that the AI model requires more computational time than the GST model when used within a finite element environment, in particular if compressed fibers are excluded.

AB - This study compares two models that are used to describe the elastic properties of fiber-reinforced materials with dispersed fibers, in particular some soft biological tissues such as arterial walls and cartilages. The two model approaches involve different constitutive frameworks, one being based on a generalized structure tensor (GST) and the other on the method of angular integration (AI). By using two representative examples, with the same number of parameters for each model, it is shown that the predictions of the two models are virtually identical for a significant range of large deformations, which contradicts conclusions contained in several papers that are based on faulty analysis. Additionally, each of the models is fitted to sets of uniaxial data from the circumferential and axial directions of the adventitia of a human aorta, both models providing excellent agreement with the data. While the predictions of the two models are comparable and exclusion of compressed fibers can be accommodated by either model, it is well known that the AI model requires more computational time than the GST model when used within a finite element environment, in particular if compressed fibers are excluded.

U2 - 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2017.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2017.07.005

M3 - Article

SN - 1873-7285

VL - 66

SP - 193

EP - 200

JO - European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids

JF - European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids

ER -