Constitutive law of healthy gallbladder walls in passive state with damage effect

  • Wenguang LiEmail author
Original Article


Biomechanical properties of human gallbladder (GB) wall in passive state can be valuable to diagnosis of GB diseases. In the article, an approach for identifying damage effect in GB walls during uniaxial tensile test was proposed and a strain energy function with the damage effect was devised as a constitutive law phenomenologically. Scalar damage variables were introduced respectively into the matrix and two families of fibres to assess the damage degree in GB walls. The parameters in the constitutive law with the damage effect were determined with a custom MATLAB code based on two sets of existing uniaxial tensile test data on human and porcine GB walls in passive state. It turned out that the uniaxial tensile test data for GB walls could not be fitted properly by using the existing strain energy function without the damage effect, but could be done by means of the proposed strain energy function with the damage effect involved. The stresses and Young moduli developed in two families of fibres were more than thousands higher than the stresses and Young’s moduli in the matrix. According to the damage variables estimated, the damage effect occurred in two families of fibres only. Once the damage occurs, the value of the strain energy function will decrease. The proposed constitutive laws are meaningful for finite element analysis on human GB walls.


Gallbladder Constitutive law Damage variable Biomechanical property Strain energy function Yield point 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.


  1. 1.
    Amaral J, Xiao ZL, Chen Q, et al. Gallbladder muscle dysfunction in patients with chronic acalculous disease. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(2):506–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bateson MC. Gallbladdr disease. BMJ. 1999;318:1745–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker W, Gross D. A one-dimensional micromechanical model of elastic-microplastic damage evolution. Acta Mech. 1987;70:221–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behar J, Lee KY, Thomson WR, Biancani P. Gallbladder contraction in patients with pigment and cholesterol stones. Gastroenterology. 1989;97:1479–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borly L, Hojgaard L, Gronvall S, Stage JG. Human gallbladder pressure and volume: validation of a new direct method for measurements of gallbladder pressure in patients with acute cholecystitis. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 1996;16(2):145–56.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brotschi EA, Lamorte WW, Williams LF. Effect of dietary cholesterol and indomethacin on cholelithiasis and gallbladder motility in guinea pig. Dig Dis Sci. 1984;29(11):1050–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cerci SS, Ozbek FM, Cerci C, et al. Gallbladder function and dynamics of bile flow in asymptomatic gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(22):2763–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaboche JL. Continuum damage mechanics: present state and future trends. Nucl Eng Des. 1987;105:19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fett T, Schell KG, Hoffmann MJ, et al. Effect of damage by hydroxyl generation on strength of silica fibers. J Am Ceram Soc. 2018. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fung YC, Fronek K, Patitucci P. Pseudoelasticity of arteries and the choice of its mathematical expression. Am J Physiol. 1979;237(5):H620–31.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genovese K, Casaletto L, Humphrey JD, et al. Digital image correlation-based point-wise inverse characterization of heterogeneous material properties of gallbladder in vitro. Proc R Soc Ser A. 2014;470:20140152.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goussous N, Kowdley GC, Sardana N, et al. Gallbladder dysfunction: how much longer will it be controversial? Digestion. 2014;90:147–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holzapfel GA, Gasser TC, Ogden RW. A new constitutive framework for arterial wall mechanics and a comparative study of material models. J Elast. 2000;61(1):1–48.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karimi A, Shojaei A, Tehrani P. Measurement of the mechanical properties of the human gallbladder. J Med Eng Technol. 2017;41(7):541–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurtz RC. Progress in understanding acalculous gallbladder disease. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(2):570–2.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lemaitre J. How to use damage mechanics. Nucl Eng Des. 1984;80:233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lemaitre J, Dufailly J. Damage measurements. Eng Fract Mech. 1987;28:643–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matsuki Y. Spontaneous contractions and the visco-elastic properties of the isolated guinea-pig gall-bladder. Jpn J Smooth Muscle Res. 1985;21:71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matsuki Y. Dynamic stiffness of the isolated Guinea-pig gallbladder during contraction induced by cholecystokinin. Jpn J Smooth Muscle Res. 1985;21:427–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahadevan V. Anatomy of the gallbladder and bile ducts. Surgery. 2014. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miura K, Saito S. Visco-elastic properties of the gallbladder in rabbit and guinea-pig. J Showa Med Assoc. 1967;27(2):135–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li WG, Hill NA, Ogden RW, et al. Anistropic behaviour of human gallbldder walls. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;20:363–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li WG, Luo XY. An invariant-based damage model for human and animal skins. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44:3109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li Y. Trust region, reflective techniques for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds, technical report-CTC93TR152, Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University; 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Portincasa P, Di Ciaula A, van Berge-Hengouwen GP. Smooth muscle function and dysfunction in gallbladder disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2004;6(2):151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosen J, Brown JD, De S, et al. Biomechanical properties of abdominal organs in vivo and postmortem under compression loads. J Biomech Eng. 2008;130:021020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryan J, Cohen S. Gallbladder pressure-volume response to gastrointestinal hormones. Am J Physiol. 1976;230(6):1461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schoetz DJ, LaMorte WW, Wise WE, et al. Mechanical properties of primate gallbladder: description by a dynamic method. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 1981;241:G376–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stinton LM, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver. 2012;6(2):172–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Voyiadjis GZ, Kattan PI. On the theory of elastic undamageable materials. J Eng Mater Technol. 2013;135:021002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Voyiadjis GZ, Kattan PI. Decomposition of elastic stiffness degradation in continuum damage mechanics. J Eng Mater Technol. 2017;139:021005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xiong L, Chui CK, Teo CL. Reality based modelling and simulation of gallbladder shape deformation using variational methods. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013;8:857–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations