Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Experimental Investigation of the Inelastic Response of Pig and Rat Skin Under Uniaxial Cyclic Mechanical Loading

  • 36 Accesses

Abstract

Skin is a highly non-linear, anisotropic, rate dependent inelastic, and nearly incompressible material which exhibits substantial hysteresis even under very slow (quasistatic) loading conditions. In this paper, a series of uniaxial cyclic loading tests of porcine and rat skin at different strain rates and with samples oriented in different directions (with respect to the spine) were conducted to study the effect of strain rate and samples orientations with respect to spine on Mullins-type softening and skin inelastic response. A noteworthy feature of skin is that, similar to certain filled rubbers, its mechanical response shifts after the first extension and exhibits softening and hysteresis when loaded under cyclic tension and Mullins-type softening is observed. The results of these strain-controlled cyclic loading tests also indicated that the extent of softening is different for different strain rates and orientations. Also, a substantial hysteresis persists even at very low strain rates indicating inelastic behavior beyond the rate sensitive viscoelastic response. Through this series of experiments, by investigating the effect of strain rate on pig skin and rat skin, we conclude that the skin response is rate dependent but inelastic and shows irreversible changes in fiber orientation which are observed in histology results. Also, skin shows persistent deformation that is only partially recovered even after a long period of unloading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  1. 1.

    McGrath JA, Uitto J (2010) Anatomy and organization of human skin, chap. 3. Wiley-Blackwell, pp 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444317633.ch3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444317633.ch3

  2. 2.

    Benias PC, Wells RG, Sackey-Aboagye B, Klavan H, Reidy J, Buonocore D, Miranda M, Kornacki S, Wayne M, Carr-Locke DL et al (2018) Structure and distribution of an unrecognized interstitium in human tissues. Sci Rep 8(1):4947

  3. 3.

    Ricard-Blum S (2011) The collagen family. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 3(1):a004978

  4. 4.

    Oxlund H, Manschot J, Viidik A (1988) The role of elastin in the mechanical properties of skin. J Biomech 21(3):213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(88)90172-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021929088901728

  5. 5.

    Naylor EC, Watson RE, Sherratt MJ (2011) Molecular aspects of skin ageing. Maturitas 69(3):249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.04.011. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512211001496

  6. 6.

    Liao H, Belkoff SM (1999) A failure model for ligaments. J Biomech 32(2):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00169-9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929098001699

  7. 7.

    Hill MR, Duan X, Gibson GA, Watkins S, Robertson AM (2012) A theoretical and non-destructive experimental approach for direct inclusion of measured collagen orientation and recruitment into mechanical models of the artery wall. J Biomech 45(5):762–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.11.016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00219290110 06981. Special Issue on Cardiovascular Solid Mechanics

  8. 8.

    Brown IA (1973) A scanning electron microscope study of the effects of uniaxial tension on human skin. British J Dermatol 89(4):383–393

  9. 9.

    Xu F, Lu T (2011) Skin mechanical behaviour, chap. 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 87–104

  10. 10.

    Haut R (1989) The effects of orientation and location on the strength of dorsal rat skin in high and low speed tensile failure experiments. J Biomech Eng 111(2):136–140

  11. 11.

    Swaim SF, Henderson RA, Pidgeon RS, et al. (1990) Small animal wound management. Lea & Febiger

  12. 12.

    Dombi GW, Haut RC, Sullivan WG (1993) Correlation of high-speed tensile strength with collagen content in control and lathyritic rat skin. J Surg Res 54(1):21–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsre.1993.1004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022480483710048

  13. 13.

    Annaidh AN, Bruyère K, Destrade M, Gilchrist MD, Otténio M (2012) Characterization of the anisotropic mechanical properties of excised human skin. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 5(1):139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.08.016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S17516161110 02219

  14. 14.

    North JF, Gibson F (1978) Volume compressibility of human abdominal skin. J Biomech 11(4):203207–205

  15. 15.

    Fung YC (2013) Biomechanics: mechanical properties of living tissues. Springer Science & Business Media

  16. 16.

    Kang G, Wu X (2011) Ratchetting of porcine skin under uniaxial cyclic loading. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4(3):498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.12.015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616110001906

  17. 17.

    Holzapfel GA (2005) Similarities between soft biological tissues and rubberlike materials. In: Constitutive models for rubber-proceedings-, vol 4. Balkema, p 607

  18. 18.

    Mullins L (1949) Permanent set in vulcanized rubber. Rubber Chem Technol 22 (4):1036–1044. https://doi.org/10.5254/1.3543010

  19. 19.

    Diani J, Fayolle B, Gilormini P (2009) A review on the mullins effect. Eur Polym J 45(3):601–612

  20. 20.

    Blanchard AF, Parkinson D (1952) Breakage of carbon-rubber networks by applied stress. Indus Eng Chem 44(4):799–812. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50508a034

  21. 21.

    Houwink R (1955) Slipping of molecules during the deformation of reinforced rubber. Rubber Chem Technol 29(3):888–893. https://doi.org/10.5254/1.3542602

  22. 22.

    Kraus G, Childers CW, Rollmann KW (1966) Stress softening in carbon black-reinforced vulcanizates. Strain rate and temperature effects. J Appl Polymer Sci 10(2):229–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1966.070100205

  23. 23.

    Hanson DE, Hawley M, Houlton R, Chitanvis K, Rae P, Orler EB, Wrobleski DA (2005) Stress softening experiments in silica-filled polydimethylsiloxane provide insight into a mechanism for the mullins effect. Polymer 46(24):10989–10995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2005.09.039

  24. 24.

    Fukahori Y (2005) New progress in the theory and model of carbon black reinforcement of elastomers. J Appl Polymer Sci 95(1):60–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.20802

  25. 25.

    Lanir Y, Fung Y (1974) Two-dimensional mechanical properties of rabbit skin—ii. experimental results. J Biomech 7(2):171IN9175–174182

  26. 26.

    Daly CH, Odland GF (1979) Age-related changes in the mechanical properties of human skin. J Investig Dermatol 73(1):84–87

  27. 27.

    Lokshin O, Lanir Y (2009) Viscoelasticity and preconditioning of rat skin under uniaxial stretch: microstructural constitutive characterization. J Biomech Eng 131(3):031009

  28. 28.

    Nava A, Mazza E, Haefner O, Bajka M (2004) Experimental observation and modelling of preconditioning in soft biological tissues. In: Cotin S, Metaxas D (eds) Medical simulation. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–8

  29. 29.

    Avis NJ (2000) Virtual environment technologies. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 9(5):333–339. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645700009061455

  30. 30.

    Satava RM, et al. (1999) Virtual reality in medicine. Bmj 319(7220):1305

  31. 31.

    Muñoz M, Bea J, Rodríguez J, Ochoa I, Grasa J, del Palomar AP, Zaragoza P, Osta R, Doblaré M (2008) An experimental study of the mouse skin behaviour: damage and inelastic aspects. J Biomech 41(1):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.07.013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002192900700320X

  32. 32.

    Zhu Y, Kang G, Kan Q, Yu C (2014) A finite viscoelastic–plastic model for describing the uniaxial ratchetting of soft biological tissues. J Biomech 47(5):996–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.01.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929014000177

  33. 33.

    Carew E, Barber J, Vesely I (2000) Role of preconditioning and recovery time in repeated testing of aortic valve tissues: validation through quasilinear viscoelastic theory. Ann Biomed Eng 28(9):1093–1100

  34. 34.

    Karimi A, Navidbakhsh M, Shojaei A (2015) A combination of histological analyses and uniaxial tensile tests to determine the material coefficients of the healthy and atherosclerotic human coronary arteries. Tissue Cell 47(2):152–158

  35. 35.

    Chen Q, Wang Y, Li ZY (2016) Re-examination of the mechanical anisotropy of porcine thoracic aorta by uniaxial tensile tests. Biomed Eng Online 15(2):167

  36. 36.

    Berardesca E, Elsner P, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI (1995) Bioengineering of the skin: methods and instrumentation, vol 3. CRC Press

  37. 37.

    Zhou B, Xu F, Chen CQ, Lu TJ (2010) Strain rate sensitivity of skin tissue under thermomechanical loading. Philos Trans R Soc London A: Math Phys Eng Sci 368(1912):679–690. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0238. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1912/679

  38. 38.

    Minns R, Soden P, Jackson D (1973) The role of the fibrous components and ground substance in the mechanical properties of biological tissues: a preliminary investigation. J Biomech 6(2):153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(73)90084-5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021929073900845

  39. 39.

    Eshel H, Lanir Y (2001) Effects of strain level and proteoglycan depletion on preconditioning and viscoelastic responses of rat dorsal skin. Ann Biomed Eng 29(2):164–172

  40. 40.

    Ottenio M, Tran D, Annaidh AN, Gilchrist MD, Bruyère K (2015) Strain rate and anisotropy effects on the tensile failure characteristics of human skin. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 41:241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.10.006. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616114003282

  41. 41.

    Mullins L (1948) Effect of stretching on the properties of rubber. Rubber Chem Technol 21(2):281–300. https://doi.org/10.5254/1.3546914

  42. 42.

    Lanir Y (1979) The rheological behavior of the skin: experimental results and a structural model. Biorheology 16(3):191

  43. 43.

    Xu F, Lu T, Seffen K (2008) Biothermomechanics of skin tissues. J Mech Phys Solids 56 (5):1852–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2007.11.011. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002250960700227X

  44. 44.

    Sellaro TL, Hildebrand D, Lu Q, Vyavahare N, Scott M, Sacks MS (2007) Effects of collagen fiber orientation on the response of biologically derived soft tissue biomaterials to cyclic loading. J Biomed Mater Resarch Part A 80(1):194–205

  45. 45.

    Kazerooni NA, Srinivasa A, Criscione J Inelastic response of skin under uniaxial cyclic mechanical loading-multinetwork model comparison with experiments. International Journal of Engineering Science (Under Review)

  46. 46.

    Srinivasa AR, Srinivasan SM (2009) Inelasticity of materials: an engineering approach and a practical guide, vol 80. World Scientific Publishing Company

  47. 47.

    Rajagopal KR, Srinivasa AR (2016) An implicit three-dimensional model for describing the inelastic response of solids undergoing finite deformation. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik 67(4):86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00033-016-0671-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully thank Dr. Terry Creasy from Texas A&M University for allowing us to use his facilities.

Author information

Correspondence to A.R. Srinivasa.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Both DIC and Instron cross-head engineering strain

In order to compare the Instron cross-head strain and the strain measured by DIC, the strain from grip displacement and the strain from image correlation along the sample from different positions of the sample were calculated, it was seen that the difference between both measurement was less than 5 percent.

$$ \varepsilon_{d}\ = \frac{y_{2}-y_{1}}{u_{2}-u_{1}} $$
(2)

Samples with a width of 10.4 mm, thickness of 1.65 mm and initial length of 54 mm were tested under a simple tension test. The measured engineering strain from crosshead displacement was 1.85 (εc). Also, engineering strain was measured by DIC; 5 different lines were chosen from different positions of the sample Fig. 14. The engineering strain (εd) was calculated as the differences between displacements of the top and bottom point of the line (y1 and y2) and divided by the difference between positions of these points on the line (u1 and u2). Table 1 shows strains measured by both DIC and Instron cross-head. The differences between εd and εc are less than 5 percent on each line and by getting the average of strain on all 5 lines, the difference is 2.7 percent which conforms to the strain measurement by the Instron cross-head.

Fig. 14
figure14

(a) Schematic calculation of Engineering Strain in Y direction from DIC. (b) Displacement in Y direction measuring by DIC

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Afsar-Kazerooni, N., Srinivasa, A. & Criscione, J. Experimental Investigation of the Inelastic Response of Pig and Rat Skin Under Uniaxial Cyclic Mechanical Loading. Exp Mech (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-019-00556-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mullins effect
  • Skin
  • Uniaxial cyclic tension testing
  • Partially unloading
  • Fiber orientation and strain rate