Advertisement

The Influence of Stretch Range on the Hyperelastic Material Model Parameters for Pig’s Skin with Consideration of Specimen Taken Direction

  • Sylwia ŁaganEmail author
  • Aneta Liber-Kneć
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 925)

Abstract

The aim of this work was an analysis of hyperelastic material models to predict the behavior of skin tissue. The most popular Mooney-Rivlin, Humprey, Veronda-Westmann, Yeoh and Ogden models were analized. The parallel and perpendicular to the pig’s spinal directions of specimens taken were consider in the tests. The input data to the simulation were defined for parallel direction as 5, 15, 25%, for perpendicular as 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% and also as total range of engineering stretch. The results were used to prediction of mechanical behavior and comparison with experimental and literature data. The strong influence of input data range on the values of model parameters was observed.

Keywords

Skin tissue Non-linear mechanical behavior Correlation of fitting material models Tensile tests 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was realized due to statutory activities M-1/12/2018/DS.

References

  1. 1.
    Benitez, J.M., Montans, F.J.: The mechanical behavior of skin: structures and models for the finite element analysis. Comput. Struct. 190, 75–107 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chanda, A., Graeter, R., Unnikrishnan, V.: Effect of blasts on subject-specific computational models of skin and bone sections at various locations on the human body. AIMS Mater. Sci. 2(4), 425–447 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flynn, C., Taberner, A., Nielsen, P.: Mechanical characterisation of in vivo human skin using a 3D force-sensitive micro-robot and finite element analysis. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 10(1), 27–38 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groves, R., Coulman, S., Birchall, J., Evans, S.: An anisotropic, hyperelastic model for skin: experimental measurements, finite element modelling and identification of parameters for human and murine skin. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 18, 167–180 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joodaki, H., Panzer, M.B.: Skin mechanical properties and modeling: a review. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 232(4), 323–343 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lapeer, R.J., Gassona, D., Karri, V.: Simulating plastic surgery: from human skin tensile tests, through hyperelastic finite element models to real-time haptics. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 103(2–3), 208–216 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liber-Kneć, A., Łagan, S.: Factors influencing on mechanical properties of porcine skin obtained in tensile test-preliminary studies. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 623, pp. 255–262 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lim, J., Hong, J., Chen, W.W., Weerasooriya, T.: Mechanical response of pig skin under dynamic tensile loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 38, 130–135 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Łagan, S., Liber-Kneć, A.: Application of the Ogden model to the tensile stress-strain behavior of the pig’s. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 526, pp. 145–152 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Łagan, S., Liber-Kneć, A.: Experimental testing and constitutive modeling of the mechanical properties of the swine skin tissue. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 19(2), 93–102 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Łagan, S., Liber-Kneć, A.: Influence of strain rates on the hyperelastic material models parameters of pig skin tissue. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 623, pp. 279–287 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martins, P., Jorge, R.N., Ferreira, A.: A comparative study of several material models for prediction of hyperelastic properties: application to silicone-rubber and soft tissues. Strain 42, 135–147 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ní Annaidh, A., Destrade, M., Gilchrist, M.D., Murphy, J.G.: Deficiencies in numerical models of anisotropic nonlinearly elastic materials. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 12, 781–791 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ottenio, M., Tran, D., Ní Annaidh, A., Gilchrist, M.D., Bruyère, K.: Strain rate and anisotropy effects on the tensile failure characteristics of human skin. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 41, 241–250 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Remache, D., Caliez, M., Gratton, M., Dos Santos, S.: The effects of cyclic tensile and stress-relaxation tests on porcine skin. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 77, 242–249 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shergold, O.A., Fleck, N.A., Radford, D.: The uniaxial stress versus strain response of pig skin and silicone rubber at low and high strain rates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 32, 1384–1402 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wex, C., Arndt, S., Stoll, A., Bruns, C., Kupriyanova, Y.: Isotropic incompressible hyperelastic models for modeling the mechanical behaviour of biological tissues: a review. BioMed Eng/Biomedizinische Technik 60(6), 577–592 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cracow University of TechnologyCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations