Literature DB >> 17096221

On the potential importance of non-linear viscoelastic material modelling for numerical prediction of brain tissue response: test and application.

Dave W A Brands1, Peter H M Bovendeerd, Jac S H M Wismans.   

Abstract

In current Finite Element (FE) head models, brain tissue is commonly assumed to display linear viscoelastic material behaviour. However, brain tissue behaves like a non-linear viscoelastic solid for shear strains above 1%. The main objective of this study was to study the effect of non-linear material behaviour on the predicted brain response. We used a non-linear viscoelastic constitutive model, developed on the basis of experimental shear data presented elsewere. First we tested the numerical implementation of the constitutive model by simulating the response of a silicone gel (Sylgard 572 A&B) filled cylindrical cup, subjected to a transient rotational acceleration. The experimental results could be reproduced within 9%. Subsequently, the effect of non-linear material modelling on computed brain response was investigated in an existing three-dimensional head model subjected to an eccentric rotation. At the applied external load strains in the brain were approximately ten times larger than was expected on the basis of published data. This is probably caused by the values of the shear moduli applied in the model. These are at least a factor of ten lower than the ones used in head models in literature but comparable to material data in recent literature. Non-linear material behaviour was found to influence the levels of predicted strains (+20%) and stresses (-11%) but not their temporal and spatial distribution. The pressure response was independent of non-linear material behaviour. In fact it could be predicted by the equilibrium of momentum, and thus it is independent of the choice of the brain constitutive model.

Entities:  

Year:  2002        PMID: 17096221     DOI: 10.4271/2002-22-0006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stapp Car Crash J        ISSN: 1532-8546


  8 in total

1.  A Mechanical Brain Damage Framework Used to Model Abnormal Brain Tau Protein Accumulations of National Football League Players.

Authors:  M F Horstemeyer; P R Berthelson; J Moore; A K Persons; A Dobbins; R K Prabhu
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  Study of mild traumatic brain injuries using experiments and finite element modeling.

Authors:  Michael Lamy; Daniel Baumgartner; Remy Willinger; Narayan Yoganandan; Brian D Stemper
Journal:  Ann Adv Automot Med       Date:  2011

3.  Effect of bulk modulus on deformation of the brain under rotational accelerations.

Authors:  S Ganpule; N P Daphalapurkar; M Pirtini Cetingul; K T Ramesh
Journal:  Shock Waves       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 1.759

Review 4.  Finite-element models of the human head and their applications in forensic practice.

Authors:  Jean-Sébastien Raul; Caroline Deck; Rémy Willinger; Bertrand Ludes
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 2.686

5.  Biomechanics of traumatic brain injury: influences of the morphologic heterogeneities of the cerebral cortex.

Authors:  R J H Cloots; H M T Gervaise; J A W van Dommelen; M G D Geers
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Volumetric intraoperative brain deformation compensation: model development and phantom validation.

Authors:  Christine DeLorenzo; Xenophon Papademetris; Lawrence H Staib; Kenneth P Vives; Dennis D Spencer; James S Duncan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 10.048

7.  Grand Challenge: Computational Models Validated Against Critical Experiments.

Authors:  Jack C Roberts
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2013-06-12

8.  Effective Viscoplastic-Softening Model Suitable for Brain Impact Modelling.

Authors:  Bartłomiej Dyniewicz; Jacek M Bajkowski; Czesław I Bajer
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.623

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.