Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 705–715 | Cite as

Visco-hyperelastic law for finite deformations: a frequency analysis

  • Mathieu Charlebois
  • Hamid Motallebzadeh
  • W. Robert J. Funnell
Original Paper

Abstract

Some biological tissues are repeatedly stimulated under cyclic loading, and this stimulation can be combined with large pressures, thus leading to large deformations. For such applications, visco-hyperelastic models have been proposed in the literature and used in finite-element studies. An extensively used quasi-linear model (QLVH), which assumes linear evolution equations, is compared with a nonlinear model (NLVH), which assumes a multiplicative split of the deformation gradient. The comparison is made here using sets of simulations covering a large frequency range. Lost and stored energies are computed, and the additional parameter of the NLVH model is set to two values found in the literature (NLVH-2 and NLVH-30 models). The predicted behaviour is very similar for all models at small strains, with each time constant (and corresponding viscous modulus) being associated with a damping peak and a stored-energy increase. When the strain amplitude is increased, the ratio of lost to stored energy increases for the QLVH model, but decreases for the NLVH models. The NLVH-30 model also displays a shift of the peak damping towards higher frequencies. Before reaching a steady state, all models display a decay of energy independent of the frequency, and the additional parameter of the NLVH model permits the modelling of complex types of evolution of the damping. In conclusion, this study compares the behaviour of two viscous hyper-elastic laws to allow an informed choice between them.

Keywords

Middle ear Vocal folds Viscoelasticity Large deformations Nonlinearity Frequency response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aernouts J, Dirckx J (2011) Static versus dynamic gerbil tympanic membrane elasticity: derivation of the complex modulus. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 11(6): 829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Athanasiou K, Natoli R (2008) Introduction to continuum biomechanics. Synth Lect Biomed Eng 3(1): 1–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng T, Dai C, Gan R (2007) Viscoelastic properties of human tympanic membrane. Ann Biomed Eng 35(2): 305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciambella J, Destrade M, Ogden RW (2009) On the ABAQUS FEA model of finite viscoelasticity. Rubber Chem Technol 82(2): 184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciambella J, Paolone A, Vidoli S (2010) A comparison of nonlinear integral-based viscoelastic models through compression tests on filled rubber. Mech Mater 42(10): 932–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Decraemer W, Maftoon N, Dirckx J, Funnell WRJ (2011) The effects of the asymmetric shape of the tympanic membrane on the asymmetry of ossicular displacements for positive and negative static pressures. ARO Midwinter MeetingGoogle Scholar
  7. Fung Y (1993) Biomechanics: mechanical properties of living tissues. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Govindjee S, Reese S (1997) A presentation and comparison of two large deformation viscoelasticity models. J Eng Mater Technol 119(5): 2859–2868Google Scholar
  9. Holzapfel G (2000) Nonlinear solid mechanics: a continuum approach for engineering, chapter 2. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Holzapfel G, Gasser T (2001) A viscoelastic model for fiber-reinforced composites at finite strains: continuum basis, computational aspects and applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190(34): 4379–4403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ladak HM, Funnell WRJ, Decraemer WF, Dirckx JJJ (2006) A geometrically nonlinear finite-element model of the cat eardrum. J Acoust Soc Am 119(5): 2859–2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lejeunes S, Boukamel A, Meo S (2010) Finite element implementation of nearly-incompressible rheological models based on multiplicative decompositions. Comput Struct 89(3-4): 411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin R, Brocks W, Betten J (2006) On internal dissipation inequalities and finite strain inelastic constitutive laws: theoretical and numerical comparisons. Int J Plast 22(10): 1825–1857MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maas SA, Ellis BJ, Ateshian GA, Weiss JA (2012) FEBio: finite elements for biomechanics. J Biomech Eng 134(1): 011005-1–011005-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martins P, Natal Jorge R, Ferreira A (2006) A comparative study of several material models for prediction of hyperelastic properties: application to silicone-rubber and soft tissues. Strain 42(3): 135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mase G, Mase G (1999) Continuum mechanics for engineers, chapter 9. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nguyen TD, Jones RE, Boyce BL (2007) Modeling the anisotropic finite-deformation viscoelastic behavior of soft fiber-reinforced composites. Int J Solids Struct 44(25-26): 8366–8389MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nguyen TD (2007) A comparison of a nonlinear and quasilinear viscoelastic anisotropic model for fibrous tissues. IUTAM Symp Cell Mol Tissue Mech 16(1): 19–29Google Scholar
  19. Park S, Schapery R (1999) Methods of interconversion between linear viscoelastic material functions part I–A numerical method based on Prony series. Int J Solids Struct 36(11): 1653–1675MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patzák B, Bittnar Z (2001) Design of object oriented finite element code. Adv Eng Softw 32(10–11): 759–767MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peña E, Calvo B, Martínez M, Doblaré M (2007) An anisotropic visco-hyperelastic model for ligaments at finite strains: formulation and computational aspects. Int J Solids Struct 44(3-4): 760–778MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Puso MA, Weiss JA (1998) Finite element implementation of anisotropic quasi-linear viscoelasticity using a discrete spectrum approximation. J Biomech Eng 120(1): 62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qi L, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ (2008) A nonlinear finite-element model of the newborn middle ear. J Acoust Soc Am 124(1): 337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reese S, Govindjee S (1998) A theory of finite viscoelasticity and numerical aspects. Int J Solids Struct 35(26–27): 3455–3482MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stach B (2008) Clinical audiology: an introduction. Cengage Learning, Clifton ParkGoogle Scholar
  26. Stuhmiller J (1989) Use of modeling in predicting tympanic membrane rupture. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 140: 53–60Google Scholar
  27. Taylor Z, Comas O, Cheng M, Passenger J, Hawkes D, Atkinson D, Ourselin S (2009) On modelling of anisotropic viscoelasticity for soft tissue simulation: numerical solution and gpu execution. Med Image Anal 13(2): 234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wineman A (2009) Nonlinear viscoelastic solids—a review. Math Mech Solids 14(3): 300–366MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zemlin WR (1998) Speech and hearing science: anatomy and physiology. 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. Zener C (1948) Elasticity and anelasticity of metals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang K, Siegmund T, Chan RW (2006) A constitutive model of the human vocal fold cover for fundamental frequency regulation. J Acoust Soc Am 119(2): 1050–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu Charlebois
    • 1
  • Hamid Motallebzadeh
    • 1
  • W. Robert J. Funnell
    • 2
  1. 1.BioMedical Engineering Department, Faculty of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Engineering and Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, Faculty of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations