Indentation has several advantages as a loading mode for determining constitutive behavior of soft, biological tissues. However, indentation induces a complex, spatially heterogeneous deformation field that creates analytical challenges for the calculation of constitutive parameters. As a result, investigators commonly assume small indentation depths and large sample thicknesses to simplify analysis and then restrict indentation depth and sample geometry to satisfy these assumptions. These restrictions limit experimental resolution in some fields, such as brain biomechanics. However, recent experimental evidence suggests that conventionally applied limits are in fact excessively conservative. We conducted a parametric study of indentation loading with various indenter geometries, surface interface conditions, sample compressibility, sample geometry and indentation depth to quantitatively describe the deviation from previous treatments that results from violation of the assumptions of small indentation depth and large sample thickness. We found that the classical solution was surprisingly robust to violation of the assumption of small strain but highly sensitive to violation of the assumption of large sample thickness, particularly if the indenter was cylindrical. The ramifications of these findings for design of indentation experiments are discussed and correction factors are presented to allow future investigators to account for these effects without recreating our finite element models.
Finite element modeling Indentation Parametric study Brain Large strain
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This study was supported by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, Project No. DTNH22-08-C-00088.
Christ AF, Franze K, Gautier H, Moshayedi P, Fawcett J, Franklin RJ, Karadottir RT, Guck J (2010) Mechanical difference between white and gray matter in the rat cerebellum measured by scanning force microscopy. J Biomech 43(15):2986–2992. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis EK, Horkay F, Maresca J, Kachar B, Chadwick RS (2002) Determination of elastic moduli of thin layers of soft material using the atomic force microscope. Biophys J 82(5):2798–2810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias PZ, Spector M (2012) Viscoelastic characterization of rat cerebral cortex and type I collagen scaffolds for central nervous system tissue engineering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 12:63–73. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.03.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkin BS, Azeloglu EU, Costa KD, Morrison B III (2007) Mechanical heterogeneity of the rat hippocampus measured by atomic force microscope indentation. J Neurotrauma 24(5):812–822. doi:10.1089/neu.2006.0169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkin BS, Ilankovan A, Morrison B III (2010) Age-dependent regional mechanical properties of the rat hippocampus and cortex. J Biomech Eng 132(1):011010. doi:10.1115/1.4000164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkin BS, Ilankovan A, Morrison B III, (2011) A detailed viscoelastic characterization of the rat brain. J Neurotrauma doi:10.1089/neu.2010.1604
Finan JD, Elkin BS, Pearson EM, Kalbian IL, Morrison B III (2012) Viscoelastic properties of the rat brain in the sagittal plane: effects of anatomical structure and age. Ann Biomed Eng 40(1):70–78. doi:10.1007/s10439-011-0394-2Google Scholar
Garo A, Hrapko M, van Dommelen JA, Peters GW (2007) Towards a reliable characterisation of the mechanical behaviour of brain tissue: the effects of post-mortem time and sample preparation. Biorheology 44(1):51–58Google Scholar
Hayes WC, Herrmann G, Mockros LF, Keer LM (1972) A mathematical analysis for indentation tests of articular cartilage. J Biomech 5(5):541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin H, Lewis JL (2004) Determination of Poisson’s ratio of articular cartilage by indentation using different-sized indenters. J Biomech Eng-T Asme 126(2):138–145. doi:10.1115/1/.1688772Google Scholar
Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
Kalidindi SR, Pathak S (2008) Determination of the effective zero-point and the extraction of spherical nanoindentation stress–strain curves. Acta Mater 56(14):3523–3532. doi:10.1016/J.Actamat.2008.03.036Google Scholar
Lin DC, Shreiber DI, Dimitriadis EK, Horkay F (2009) Spherical indentation of soft matter beyond the Hertzian regime: numerical and experimental validation of hyperelastic models. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 8(5):345–358. doi:10.1007/s10237-008-0139-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao H, Elkin BS, Genthikatti VV, Morrison B III, Yang KH (2013) Why is CA3 more vulnerable than CA1 in experimental models of controlled cortical impact-induced brain injury? J Neurotrauma doi:10.1089/neu.2012.2520
Shulyakov AV, Cenkowski SS, Buist RJ, Del Bigio MR (2011) Age-dependence of intracranial viscoelastic properties in living rats. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 4(3):484–497. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.12.012Google Scholar
Shulyakov AV, Fernando F, Cenkowski SS, Del Bigio MR (2009) Simultaneous determination of mechanical properties and physiologic parameters in living rat brain. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 8(5):415–425. doi:10.1007/s10237-008-0147-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon IN (1965) The relation between load and penetration in the axisymmetric Boussinesq problem for a punch of arbitrary profile. Int J Eng Sci 3:47–57CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Stolz M, Raiteri R, Daniels AU, VanLandingham MR, Baschong W, Aebi U (2004) Dynamic elastic modulus of porcine articular cartilage determined at two different levels of tissue organization by indentation-type atomic force microscopy. Biophys J 86(5):3269–3283. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74375-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang M, Zheng YP, Mak AFT (1997) Estimating the effective Young’s modulus of soft tissues from indentation tests: nonlinear finite element analysis of effects of friction and large deformation. Med Eng Phys 19(6):512–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar