You are on page 1of 151

NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF AN

ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSM

A thesis

submitted by
Christie Wilson

In partial satisfaction of the requirements

for the degree Master of Science in Structural Engineering

TUFTS UNIVERSITY

August 2008

Thesis Committee:
Professor Luis Dorfmann, Chair

Professor Robert Peattie

Professor Masoud Sanayei


1456625

1456625
2008
Abstract

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are defined as permanent, localized di-


lations of the abdominal aorta, and are induced by localized weakening of

the arterial wall. Although mortality on aneurysmal rupture exceeds 90 per-

cent, surgical repair options are available for AAAs diagnosed prior to rupture.
Currently, surgical management is recommended when the risk of rupture ex-

ceeds risks associated with surgery, which is thought to occur when the lesion
maximum diameter is greater than 5.5 cm. However, from a biomechanical

standpoint, rupture is to be expected when wall stress, not diameter, is greater

than sustainable limits. In this project, a nonlinear, multilayer, finite element


model of the diseased vessel wall replicating the shape of a specific patient
aneurysm as evaluated from CT imaging has been developed. Stress-strain
calculations have been performed in this model under three loading condi-

tions: (i) steady, uniform internal wall pressure at 120 mmHg, a typical value

for systolic blood flow in vivo, (ii) pulsatile internal wall pressure approxi-
mating the cardiac cycle with a sine function and (iii) spatially non-uniform
internal wall pressure based on experimental fluid flow measurements taken

from a physical replica of this patient model. The maximum values for prin-

cipal stresses under the three aforementioned loading conditions are 654 kPa,
654 kPa, and 650 kPa, respectively. A straight tube healthy abdominal aorta

model resulted in a maximum value for principal stress of 207.8 kPa. The

stresses in the aneurysm have about tripled from the stresses reported in the
straight tube healthy aorta under constant systolic pressure loading. Although

the difference in maximum stresses between uniform and non-uniform loading

conditions for the aneurysm is less than one percent, the resulting stress dif-
ference for another patient’s geometry could be very significant.
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the following people, whose support


and advice were invaluable in this project:

My advisor Luis Dorfmann, thank you for your constant motivation and

encouragement throughout my research. Your diligence and patience with


teaching the material was much appreciated.

My thesis committee member Robert Peattie, thank you for your essential

collaboration in this project. I appreciate the time you spent explaining the

biology and fluid mechanics concepts behind your work.

Professor Lee Minardi, thank you for your creativity, knowledge and will-
ingness to help with my troubleshooting in AutoCAD.

Erik Edgar, thank you for supplying the fluid dynamics data necessary
to develop a non-uniform internal pressure loading for the abdominal aortic
aneurysm finite element analysis model.

Julia Carroll, thank you for your words of encouragement when my re-
search was frustrating and sharing in my success when my research was promis-

ing.

iii
To my mom, Christine Wilson, thank you for all your love and support.

Without you, I would not be where I am today.

iv
Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii


List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Physiology of a Healthy Abdominal Aorta . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Physiology of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 Literature Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


1.4.1 Material Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.4.2 Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Wall Stress . . . . . . . . 14

1.4.3 Solid Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.5 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 Nonlinear Theory 18

2.1 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.1.1 Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.1.2 Gradient, Divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

v
2.1.3 Deformation Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.1.4 Nanson’s Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


2.1.5 Polar Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.1.6 Strain Tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


2.2 Conservation of Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.3 Conservation of Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


2.4 Stress Tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.5 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.6 Objectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2.7 Isotropy, Anisotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2.8 Compressibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3 Abaqus Initial Models 47


3.1 Single Hex Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.2 Multiple Hex Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.3 UMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.4 Shell Versus Solid Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4 Abaqus Straight Tube Healthy Abdominal Aorta Model 69

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.3 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.3.1 Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.3.2 Neo-Hookean Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.3.3 Gent Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.3.4 Healthy Abdominal Aorta Material . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.4 Boundary and Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90


4.5 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

vi
4.6 Stress Distribution for Uniform Constant Pressure . . . . . . . 95

4.7 Significance of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96


4.8 Stress Distribution for Uniform Variable Pressure . . . . . . . 99

4.9 Significance of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5 Abaqus Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Model 104

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104


5.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.3 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107


5.3.1 Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.3.2 Aneurysm Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.4 Boundary and Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110


5.5 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.6 Stress Distribution for Uniform Constant Pressure . . . . . . . 113

5.7 Significance of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

5.8 Stress Distribution for Uniform Variable Pressure . . . . . . . 117

5.9 Significance of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119


5.10 Stress Distribution for Non-uniform Constant Pressure . . . . 119

5.11 Significance of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

6 Conclusions 126
6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

6.2 Suggestions for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

vii
List of Tables

1.1 Circumferential residual stretch ratios of various excised, in-

tact, unloaded arteries. The (d) stands for diabetic animal,

(Humphrey 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5.1 Axial locations and pressures of the eleven pressure taps, (Edgar

2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

viii
List of Figures

1.1 The multilayer arterial wall is composed of the innermost layer

intima (I), the media (M) and the outermost layer known as

adventitia (A). A healthy artery is composed off: (1) endothelial

cells, (2) elastic lamina interna, (3) elastic fibrils, (4) smooth

muscle cell, (5) collagen fibril, (6) elastic lamina externa, (7)
collagen fibers, (8) Helically arranged fiber reinforced intimal
layer, (9) transversely isotropic fiber reinforced medial unit, (10)

helically arranged fiber reinforced adventitial layer, (Holzapfel


et al. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Human aorta, (www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/aorta.html). 7

1.3 Human abdominal aorta with aneurysm, (www.nlm.nih.gov). . 7

1.4 Patient-specific image of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, (Peat-


tie 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.5 Patient-specific image of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, (Peat-

tie 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6 Patient-specific images of abdominal aortic aneurysms, (Peattie
1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.7 Open surgical aneurysm repair (left), (www.mayoclinic.org/aortic-

aneurysm/treatment.html), and endovascular stent grafting (right),

(www.nhm.org). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

ix
1.8 Typical uniaxial stress versus strain curves for circumferential

arterial strips of the media in passive condition, (Holzapfel et


al. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.1 One-to-one correspondence of body B describing the motion. . 19


2.2 Deformation of a volume element from the reference configura-
tion Br to the current configuration Bt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.3 Deformation of an area element from the reference configuration


Br to the current configuration Bt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 Boundary conditions for the uniaxially loaded, single element

Abaqus model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2 Deformed configuration of the uniaxially loaded, single element

Abaqus model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.3 Total force versus stretch for a single element Abaqus model. . 50
3.4 First Piola-Kirchhoff stress versus stretch for a single element
Abaqus model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.5 Cauchy stress versus stretch for a single element Abaqus model. 51
3.6 Boundary conditions for uniaxially loaded, multi-element Abaqus
model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.7 Deformed configuration of a uniaxially loaded, multi-element

Abaqus model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.8 UMAT for neo-Hookean material model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.9 UMAT for neo-Hookean material model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.10 UMAT for neo-Hookean material model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.11 UMAT for neo-Hookean material model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


3.12 Axial stress versus axial stretch for the two mesh models in

Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

x
3.13 Circumferential stretch versus pressure for the two mesh models

in Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.14 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.15 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using shell elements. . . . . 66


3.16 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using one solid hex element

through the thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66


3.17 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using two solid hex elements

through the thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


3.18 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using three solid hex elements

through the thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.19 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using four solid hex elements

through the thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.1 Geometry for a straight tube approximation of a healthy ab-


dominal aorta modeled in Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.2 Representative experimental data for longitudinal strips of a


healthy human abdominal aorta in equi-biaxial tension, (Digi-
tized from Vande Geest et al. (2006)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.3 Representative experimental data for circumferential strips of a

healthy human abdominal aorta in equi-biaxial tension, (Digi-


tized from Vande Geest et al. (2006)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.4 Single element Abaqus model with equi-biaxial loading. . . . . 75


4.5 Representative experimental data and the approximated data

for a healthy abdominal aorta using a neo-Hookean strain en-


ergy function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.6 Modified section of the UMAT for the Gent material model. . 79

4.7 Representative experimental data and the approximated data


for a healthy abdominal aorta using a Gent strain energy function. 80

xi
4.8 Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a uniaxial

loading condition using the Gent strain energy function. . . . 81


4.9 Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta for equi-biaxial

loading condition using the Gent strain energy function. . . . 81


4.10 Abaqus model for the triaxial loading condition. . . . . . . . . 82

4.11 Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a triaxial


loading condition using a Gent strain energy function. . . . . . 83
4.12 Modified section of the UMAT for the material model using
equation (4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.13 Representative experimental data and the approximated data

for a healthy abdominal aorta using the strain energy function

from equation (4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.14 Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a uniaxial


loading condition using the strain energy function from equation
(4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.15 Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a biaxial

loading condition using the strain energy function from equation


(4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.16 Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a triaxial

loading condition using the strain energy function from equation

(4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.17 BC-1 : Displacement in the x-direction = 0 at the top and

bottom lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.18 BC-2 : Displacement in the y-direction = 0 at the left and right

lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.19 BC-3: Displacement in the z-direction = 0 at one end. . . . . 92

4.20 BC-4: Displacement in the z-direction = 10 mm at other end. 92

xii
4.21 Internal pressure, 16 kPa, loading condition. . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.22 Undeformed mesh for a straight tube healthy abdominal aorta


model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.23 Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for a straight tube healthy
abdominal aorta model for uniform, constant systolic pressure

loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.24 Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for a straight tube healthy

abdominal aorta model for uniform, constant systolic pressure


loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.25 Undeformed and deformed model. The undeformed model is in

light gray while the deformed model is in dark gray. . . . . . . 97

4.26 Deformed mesh for the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta

model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4.27 Principal stresses versus stretch data for step 1 and step 2 for
one internal element of the straight tube healthy abdominal
aorta model. The maximum principal stress is in the axial di-

rection during step 1 and in the circumferential direction in step


2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4.28 Principal stresses versus pressure for one internal element of the

straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model under constant

systolic pressure loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.29 Typical blood pressure diagram where systolic pressure is the

peak pressure (120 mmHg) while diastolic pressure is the mini-


mum pressure (70 mmHg), (www.williams.edu/Biology/Faculty/

Staff/sswoap/site/picture.html). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4.30 Approximated blood pressure where systolic pressure is 16 kPa

(120 mmHg) and diastolic pressure is 9 kPa (70 mmHg). . . . 100

xiii
4.31 Max principal stress versus step time for one element of the

straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model. . . . . . . . . . 101


4.32 Principal stresses versus pressure for one element of the straight

tube healthy abdominal aorta model under periodic amplitude


pressure loading. This graph is for the third step only and uses

the loading seen in Figure 4.30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102


4.33 Principal stresses versus step time for one element of the straight

tube healthy abdominal aorta model under periodic amplitude


pressure loading. This graph is for the third step only and uses

the loading seen in Figure 4.30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.1 Original three dimensional solid model of the lumen of a patient-


specific abdominal aortic aneurysm. Front view (left) and side

view (right), (Edgar 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.2 Three dimensional solid model of the arterial wall of a patient-

specific abdominal aortic aneurysm. Front view (left) and side


view (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.3 Representative experimental data for longitudinal strips of a hu-

man abdominal aortic aneurysm in equi-biaxial tension,(Digitized

from Vande Geest et al. (2006)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.4 Representative experimental data for circumferential strips of

a human abdominal aortic aneurysm in equi-biaxial tension,

(Digitized from Vande Geest et al. (2006)). . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.5 Representative experimental data and the approximated data


for an abdominal aortic aneurysm using the strain energy func-

tion in equation (4.20) under equi-biaxial tension. . . . . . . . 109

5.6 BC-1 : Fixed end conditions for the abdominal aortic aneurysm
model in Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

xiv
5.7 Internal pressure loading condition for the abdominal aortic

aneurysm model in Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111


5.8 Partitions for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model. . . . . . 112

5.9 Undeformed mesh for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model. . 113
5.10 Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for whole abdominal aortic

aneurysm model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114


5.11 Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal aortic

aneurysm model. The scale was adjusted to exclude the stress


concentrations at both ends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

5.12 Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for whole abdominal

aortic aneurysm model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.13 Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal

aortic aneurysm model. The scale was adjusted to exclude the


stress concentrations at both ends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.14 Deformed mesh for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model. . . 116
5.15 Max principal stress versus stretch data for one element under

a constant systolic pressure for the abdominal aortic aneurysm


model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

5.16 Max principal stress versus step time for one element of the

abdominal aortic aneurysm model with variable pressure am-

plitude loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.17 Supplied pressure and location data, (Edgar 2008). . . . . . . 120

5.18 Curve fit equation with original data points. . . . . . . . . . . 122


5.19 Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for the whole abdominal

aortic aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading. . . 122

xv
5.20 Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal aortic

aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading. The scale


was adjusted to exclude the stress concentrations at both ends. 123

5.21 Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for the whole abdominal
aortic aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading. . . 123

5.22 Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal
aortic aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading. The

scale was adjusted to exclude the stress concentrations at both


ends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.23 Deformed mesh for half the abdominal aortic aneurysm model

with non-uniform pressure loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.24 Skewed views of the undeformed (left) and deformed (right)

abdominal aortic aneurysm models with non-uniform pressure


loading. The deformed model uses a scale factor of 2. . . . . . 125

xvi
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Scope of Work

Approximately 200,000 Americans are diagnosed each year with an abdom-


inal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Of those 200,000, about 15,000 may have an

AAA threatening enough to cause death from a ruptured aneurysm. Even


with surgery, there is a ninety percent mortality rate if an abdominal aortic

aneurysm ruptures. This is due to the fact that when an aneurysm rup-
tures, life-threatening internal bleeding occurs. Consequently, abdominal aor-
tic aneurysms are the 13th leading cause of death in the United States. For
men over the age of 55, AAA’s are the 10th leading cause of death as noted by

the University of Southern California, USC (2008). Surgical repair options are

available for aneurysms diagnosed prior to rupture. Currently, surgical man-

agement is recommended when the risk of rupture exceeds risks associated

with surgery, which is thought to occur when the lesion maximum diameter
is greater than 5.5 cm. Note that the diameter of a typical, healthy abdomi-

nal aorta is approximately 2 cm. This rule of thumb is extremely rough and

not always reliable as smaller aneurysms may have severely irregular geometry

1
which can cause localized areas of high wall stresses. From a biomechanical

standpoint, rupture is to be expected when wall stress, not diameter, is greater


than sustainable limits as discussed in Fillinger et al. (2003) and de Putter et

al. (2007).
This general area of research still is lacking a great deal of important infor-

mation in order to make a real change in the way abdominal aortic aneurysm
cases are handled. Accordingly, there is a need to understand the relations

between abdominal aortic aneurysm size, shape, flow field development, rate
of growth and mechanisms of rupture initiation.

In this project, a nonlinear, multilayered, finite element model of the dis-

eased vessel wall replicating the shape of a specific patient aneurysm as eval-

uated from CT imaging has been developed. Stress-strain calculations have

been performed in this model under three loading conditions. The first is a
steady, uniform internal wall pressure at 120 mmHg, a typical value for systolic
blood flow in vivo. The second is a pulsatile internal wall pressure approximat-
ing the cardiac cycle with a sine function. Even with a steady blood flow, the

irregular geometry of an aneurysm is thought to induce a spatially non-uniform


pressure distribution. Therefore the third loading condition is a spatially non-
uniform internal wall pressure based on experimental fluid flow measurements

taken from a physical replica of this patient model. Additionally, a straight

tube healthy abdominal aorta has been modeled as a reference point to better

understand the stresses reported for the aneurysm model. This straight tube

healthy abdominal aorta model has two loading conditions including a steady,
uniform systolic blood pressure and a pulsatile pressure approximating the car-

diac cycle. These calculations take into account geometry, material properties,
boundary conditions and applied loads to emulate realistic in vivo conditions.

These various analyses are performed by the finite element program Abaqus

2
and the results include stress distributions.

Even though there is a vast clinical experience with abdominal aortic


aneurysms, there is still a great deal unknown about them. One area of re-

search that would be helpful with this current project is the failure properties
of aneurysms. If a typical failure stress of an aneurysm wall was known, then

the maximum stress reported in the aneurysm model in this project could be
compared to that failure stress. Then it could be speculated whether or not

the aneurysm wall is likely to rupture. This tool would provide the surgeon
with objective data on the need for surgical intervention which may be more

accurate and reliable than simply comparing the maximum lesion diameter to

the rule of thumb of 5.5 cm. Another piece of information that would make

the current model more accurate would be an investigation into whether or

not thrombus is an important structural component that should be added


into the model. Thrombus are blood clots that often, but not always, are
present along the internal wall in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Some hypoth-
esize that thrombus could contribute to the weakening of the arterial wall

in an aneurysm but it is not known for sure. Additionally, there is not any
published information regarding the residual stresses involved in an aneurysm.
Thus an investigation into this research would be helpful to updating the cur-
rent project.

1.2 Physiology of a Healthy Abdominal Aorta

The aorta is a large artery that carries blood from the heart to the rest
of the human body. The abdominal aorta is the portion of the aorta in the

abdomen which is below the kidneys. All arteries consist of three layers, the

intima, media and adventitia, as discussed in detail in Humphrey (2002) and

3
Holzapfel et al. (2000). The three layers are briefly described below and are

shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: The multilayer arterial wall is composed of the innermost layer
intima (I), the media (M) and the outermost layer known as adventitia (A). A
healthy artery is composed off: (1) endothelial cells, (2) elastic lamina interna,
(3) elastic fibrils, (4) smooth muscle cell, (5) collagen fibril, (6) elastic lamina
externa, (7) collagen fibers, (8) Helically arranged fiber reinforced intimal layer,
(9) transversely isotropic fiber reinforced medial unit, (10) helically arranged
fiber reinforced adventitial layer, (Holzapfel et al. 2000).

The intima consists of a layer of endothelial cells and has negligible stiffness.
The elastic lamina separates the intima and media and is essentially a sheet of

elastin, elastic protein, which allows the transfer of nutrients between layers.

The media contains smooth muscle cells embedded in elastin and collagen.

Another sheet of elastin separates the media and adventitia. The adventitia

also contains elastin and collagen but is approximately ten times less stiff than
the media layer as shown in Holzapfel et al. (2000). The collagen fibers are

what give the material its anisotropy as the elastin is considered isotropic.

Biological tissue is also assumed incompressible. This current project assumes


an isotropic and nearly incompressible material.

4
In solid mechanics, the intima layer is often not modeled due to its negli-

gible stiffness, the media is assumed to take up 2/3 of the total wall thickness
of 2 mm and the adventitia is contained in the other 1/3 of the wall thickness

as used in Watton et al. (2004). The inner diameter of a typical healthy


abdominal aorta is approximately 1 inch as noted in Vascular Web (2006).

Often in nonlinear solid mechanics a single, natural, unloaded and stress-


free configuration is desired as the reference configuration. This is unlikely

for soft tissues since during their entire life, arteries are growing, remodeling
and aging. It has been known for some years that the load-free configuration

of a healthy artery is not stress-free, as illustrated in studies by Vaishnav

and Vossoughi (1983) and discussed more recently in Lemaitre (2001) and

Humphrey (2002). When an artery is cut from the human body, it shrinks.

Thus in-vivo, arteries are pre-stretched. Several studies have been performed
which include an estimation of this axial pre-stretch such as Holzapfel et al.
(2000), Schulze-Bauer et al. (2003) and Holzapfel et al. (2007). A value of λ =
1.1 is adopted for this research although it should be noted that each person has

a slightly different axial pre-stretch and it can vary somewhat along the length
of the aorta. This axial pre-stretch is applied in the straight tube healthy
abdominal aorta model in the current project by applying a displacement in the
axial direction before the internal blood pressure loading is applied. Another

phenomenon is when an artery is cut radially, the arterial ring will open up
to an angle called the opening angle. The opening of the ring implies that the

inner wall of the ring is in compression while the outer wall is in tension. Again,
each person has a different opening angle and this angle increases for about

15 to 30 minutes after the cut is introduced. Thus most measurements are


made after this adjustment period. Also, each layer of the artery opens up to

a slightly different opening angle. Sample circumferential stretches are shown

5
in Table 1.1. A method to include this circumferential pre-stretch would be to

modify the constitutive model to include residual stresses but this has not been
implemented in the current research. This is suggested for future research as

residual stress has an important influence on the subsequent behavior of the


arterial wall including the stress-strain distributions through the arterial wall.

Table 1.1: Circumferential residual stretch ratios of various excised, intact,


unloaded arteries. The (d) stands for diabetic animal, (Humphrey 2002).
Artery λ Intima λ Adventitia Reference
Bovine aorta 0.904 1.102 Vaishnav and
Vossoughi (1987)
Porcine aorta 0.923 1.078 Vaishnav and
Vossoughi (1987)
Rat ileal 0.79 1.13 Fung and Liu (1992)
Rat plantar 0.66 1.16 Fung and Liu (1992)
Rat pulmonary 0.7 1.28 Fung and Liu (1992)
Rat saphenous 0.852 1.17 Fung and Liu (1992)
Rat pulmonary 0.908 1.11 Fung and Liu (1992)
Rat saphenous (d) 0.75 1.29 Liu/Fung (1992)
Rat pulmonary (d) 0.766 1.25 Liu/Fung (1992)
Rat a. aorta 0.956 1.08 xie et al (1995)
Rat t. aorta 0.973 1.05 xie et al (1995)
Dog carotid 0.83 1.14 Takamizawa and
Hayashi (1987)

1.3 Physiology of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

An abdominal aortic aneurysm is characterized by a localized widening


of the abdominal aorta. Ninety percent of aortic aneurysms occur in the

abdomen as stated in Humphrey (2002). See Figures 1.2 and 1.3 for graphics

of the human aorta and a generalized human abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Aneurysms in general are a health risk because they may rupture which

will result in internal bleeding. There are no exact causes for abdominal aor-

tic aneurysms but there are several risk factors such as high blood pressure,

6
Figure 1.2: Human aorta, (www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/aorta.html).

Figure 1.3: Human abdominal aorta with aneurysm, (www.nlm.nih.gov).

smoking, high cholesterol, obesity, emphysema, old age, genetics and males

are more likely to develop an aneurysm than females as noted in Medical En-
cyclopedia (2006). There are a variety of sizes and shapes that abdominal

aortic aneurysms have and are extremely patient-specific. Also for purposes

of terminology, the lumen is the cavity through which blood flows through an

7
artery and thrombus are blood clots. Thrombus is often present in abdominal

aortic aneurysms and is thought to occur due to a possible increased turbu-


lence in the blood flow due to the irregular aneurysm geometry. This turbulent

flow might contribute to the erosion of endothelial cells which could trigger
the generation of thrombus as noted by Peattie (1996). Figures 1.4 and 1.5

show patient-specific images of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Only the lumen


is shown and the renal and femoral arteries are cut off for clarification. The

front view and side view are shown to demonstrate the geometric irregularities
in all directions. In Figure 1.6, the first row displays the lumen and thrombus

as different colors. In the second row, only the lumen is shown. A process

called segmenting is used to create these images and is described in Section

5.1.

Figure 1.4: Patient-specific image of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, (Peattie


1996).

8
Figure 1.5: Patient-specific image of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, (Peattie
1996).

Figure 1.6: Patient-specific images of abdominal aortic aneurysms, (Peattie


1996).

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are often asymptomatic and often detected

accidentally for another reason. If an aneurysm is detected, an ultrasound or

CT scan will be performed and the diameter of the aneurysm will be compared
against a rule of thumb of 5.5 cm as discussed in Vascular Web (2006). If

the aneurysm diameter is less than 5.5 cm then periodic exams will likely
be given to monitor the aneurysm. Aneurysms do not disappear on their

9
own but lowering one’s blood pressure if he/she has high blood pressure and

stoping smoking if he/she is a smoker might help to slow the growth. If


the aneurysm diameter is greater than 5.5 cm then surgery is most often

required. There are two major types of surgery: open surgical aneurysm repair
and endovascular stent grafting, both of which are described in Vascular Web

(2006). During open surgical aneurysm repair, the surgeon makes an incision
in the abdomen and replaces the weakened part of the aorta with an aortic

graft. This graft is a tube-like replacement often made of plastic. This type of
surgery is very invasive and often requires several months till full recovery is

achieved. More than ninety percent of these surgeries are successful for the long

term. The other surgical option, endovascular stent grafting, uses catheters

threaded through blood vessels in the groin area. Live X-ray pictures are used

to help the surgeon guide the endograft which is a fabric and metal tube. This
surgery is less invasive and requires less recovery time although it may need
periodic maintenance. Also, not every patient can choose this surgical option
depending on the extent of the aneurysm and other medical issues.

Figure 1.7: Open surgical aneurysm repair (left), (www.mayoclinic.org/aortic-


aneurysm/treatment.html), and endovascular stent grafting (right),
(www.nhm.org).

10
About 200,000 Americans are diagnosed with an abdominal aortic aneurysm

every year. Of those 200,000, about 15,000 require surgery as declared in Vas-
cular Web (2006). If an abdominal aortic aneurysm ruptures, there is a ninety

percent mortality rate. An abdominal aortic aneurysm is therefore the 13th


leading cause of death in the United States as noted by the University of

Southern California, USC (2008). Due to the very rough rule of thumb of
aneurysm diameter to decide if surgery is required, more information is nec-

essary in order to provide the surgeon with objective data on the need for
surgical intervention.

The mechanical and physiological properties of the diseased wall material

changes drastically from healthy arterial walls. The percent elastin, smooth

muscle and collagen by dry weight is 22.7, 22,6 and 54.8 in healthy abdominal

aortas but in the diseased wall, the percents change to 2.4, 2.2 and 96.5 as
stated in Humphrey (2002). The increase in collagen seems to account for
the drastic increase in stiffening effect in the aneurysm graph of stress versus
strain from the healthy arterial stress versus strain curve seen in Section 4.3.1.

The wall thickness can also vary over the area of the aneurysm. Additionally,
it is possible that the presence of thrombus discussed earlier might impede
the diffusion of oxygen which could contribute to the weakening of the arterial

wall. The increased turbulent blood flow from the irregular geometry might

also be responsible for the increase in collagen in the arterial wall. The increase

in collagen might be the body’s way to try to compensate for the altered

loads. Even though there is a vast clinical experience, the natural history of
abdominal aortic aneurysm remains poorly understood. There are numerous

differing hypotheses but hardly any definitive experiments to support them.


Very little is known about residual stresses of an abdominal aortic aneurysm

and to the author’s knowledge, up to now, no residual stress has been included

11
for an abdominal aortic aneurysm model. Abdominal aortic aneurysms can

expand at different rates, they may attempt to lengthen and their rupture risk
tends to increase with size yet some small aneurysms will rupture. Thus stress

distributions may be a better indication of when/where rupture may occur


rather than the diameter of the aneurysm.

1.4 Literature Survey

1.4.1 Material Parameters

There are several papers that report values of material parameters for var-

ious material models using data from healthy arterial tissue and aneurysmal

tissue. Some of these studies are briefly described here. A study in the An-
nals of Biomedical Engineering by Raghavan et al. (1996) describes results
from uniaxial testing of seventy-one abdominal aortic aneurysm samples and
seven healthy abdominal aorta samples. This study used a simple mathe-

matical model to categorize the material response using small strain theory.

The modulus of elasticity was reported at the beginning of the stress-strain


curve before collagen was activated as the contribution to total tissue stiff-
ness by elastin fibers alone. The mean values of this modulus of elasticity

for longitudinal AAA samples, circumferential AAA samples and healthy ab-
dominal aorta samples are 421 kPa, 556 kPa and 453 kPa, respectively. This

study also reported mean values for the modulus of elasticity at the end of
the stress-strain curve where collagen has been fully activated. This modulus

of elasticity pertains to the contribution to total tissue stiffness by collagen

fibers alone and has values for each of the aforementioned samples of 4082

kPa, 5394 kPa and 4681 kPa, respectively. The American Journal of Physi-
ology and Heart Circulatory Physiology published an article by Schulze-Bauer

12
et al. (2002) where extension-inflation tests were performed on eleven healthy

human femoral adventitia samples. This study used a Fung-type exponential


strain-energy function to capture the material response. A study in the Jour-

nal of Biomechanics by Schulze-Bauer et al. (2003) used pressure-diameter


clinical data of healthy thoracic aortas from a normotensive subject and a hy-

pertensive subject. This study applied the same strain energy function used
in the aforementioned study to depict the material response. The Journal

of Biomechanical Engineering published an article by Schulze-Bauer et al.


(2003) where passive biaxial mechanical testing was performed on ten healthy,

aged human iliac arteries and the response was approximated using five differ-

ent strain energy functions including a polynominal/exponential function, an

isotropic/anisotropic split function and a logarithmic function. Another study

comes from the International Journal of Solids and Structures by Balzani et


al. (2006). This study uses data from testing one healthy tissue sample of the
media layer in the abdominal aorta and also uses three polyconvex models to
capture the material response. Another study is by Holzapfel (2006) which

was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. This study determined


material parameters for each of the layers of the human aorta by using uniaxial
test data. The data is from one subject with atherosclerotic intimal thickening
and the approximated data use a combination of a neo-Hookean and Fung-type

strain energy functions. This strain energy function is composed of two terms
with the first describing the base elastic material while the second describes

the fibers which result in an anisotropic material. This study reported val-
ues for µ, shear modulus, for the base elastic material of the intima (with

atherosclerotic thickening), media and adventitia as 39.8 kPa, 31.4 kPa and
17.3 kPa, respectively.

The experimental data used in the current research comes from Vande

13
Geest et al. (2006). This study describes data from biaxially testing eight

healthy abdominal aortic tissue samples and twenty-six AAA tissue samples.
The data were chosen for use in the current research for three reasons. The

first reason is there are several tissue samples used from several subjects, not
just one sample from one subject. Additionally, the sample is of the whole

healthy aorta wall, not just one layer of the aorta wall. The second reason
is the tissues are in the exact area of concentration in the current research,

the human abdominal aorta. Lastly, the data were chosen because the study
performed biaxial testing as opposed to uniaxial testing. Biaxial data allow

for a more complete characterization of the material than uniaxial data allow.

In Vande Geest et al. (2006), a Fung-type strain energy function was used

to fit this data, however, the article pointed out that this function was not

successful in fully capturing the aneurysm material response. The next strain
energy function examined was an exponential model which better captured the
stress-strain response of the experimental data. The strain energy function
employed in the current research comes from an article by Rodrı́guez et al.

(2008). This strain energy function was chosen for two reasons. The first
and foremost reason is that this strain energy function was very successful in
capturing the experimental data stress-strain response of the abdominal aortic
aneurismal tissue reported in Vande Geest et al. (2006). The second reason

is that this strain energy function describes an isotropic material, is only a


function of the first invariant and thus it is readily able to be programmed

into a user subroutine in Abaqus.

1.4.2 Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Wall Stress

There are several studies that have evaluated the wall stress distributions

for an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Some of these studies are briefly described

14
here. Stringfellow et al. (1987) determined wall stress in an abdominal aortic

aneurysm but the geometry was assumed to be a simple cylinder. There also
was no real nonlinear constitutive material model as a mathematical model

was used to estimate wall stresses. Other two dimensional geometric mod-
els have been analyzed to determine wall stress such as Inzoli et al. (1993),

Mower et al. (1993), Elger et al. (1996), Mower et al. (1997) and DiMartino
et al. (1998). None of these studies included patient-specific geometries and

appropriate constitutive models. Raghavan and Vorp (2000) reported on the


development of an incompressible, isotropic hyper-elastic material model from

sixty-nine abdominal aortic aneurysm test samples. However, this study did

not use any patient-specific geometry. The Journal of Vascular Surgery pub-

lished an article by Raghavan et al. (2000) which used non-invasive methods to

recreate patient geometry and used a nonlinear material based on experimental


data. This study reported maximum stresses of 290 kPa to 450 kPa. Fillinger
et al. (2002) performed a very similar study and reported maximum stresses
of 480 kPa. Raghavan et al. (2005) improved upon the Raghavan and Vorp

(2000) study by using an automated algorithm calculation of wall stress. Vorp


(2007) performed finite element analysis of aneurysms with and without the
presence of thrombus using a nonlinear anisotropic material model reporting
maximum stresses of 400 kPa. Rodrı́guez et al. (2008) performed stress anal-

ysis using generalized aneurysm geometry and an anisotropic material model


based on experimental data. This study reported values for maximum stresses

of about 800 kPa.

1.4.3 Solid Mechanics

Linear finite element methods are highly developed and are based on lin-

ear theories of solid mechanics. However, most real materials and structures

15
cannot accurately be described using linear theories. Many materials and

structures exhibit nonlinear responses and undergo large deformations when


subjected to applied loads of sufficient magnitude. When a structure under-

goes large deformations, it is no longer accurate to assume the unloaded and


loaded configurations of the structure are the same. It becomes very important

to divide the structure into two assemblies, an undeformed configuration and a


deformed configuration, and to perform analyses accordingly. Nonlinear con-

stitutive equations must be used to categorize these materials and structures.


One such material is biological tissue. Human tissue exhibits a highly nonlin-

ear stress versus strain response which can be seen in Figure 1.8, (Holzapfel

et al. 2000).

Figure 1.8: Typical uniaxial stress versus strain curves for circumferential
arterial strips of the media in passive condition, (Holzapfel et al. 2000).

The material stress-strain response data is based on tension tests per-

formed in the author’s laboratory. The engineering response data indicates

an approximate response using an elastic model up to point 1 and a rate-

16
independent elastoplastic model for the remaining portions of the curves as

noted in Holzapfel et al. (2000).

1.5 Organization

The current research in this thesis is organized as follows. The major con-

cepts of nonlinear solid mechanics are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3


discusses the initial models used in Abaqus and the user subroutine, UMAT,
for a neo-Hookean material model. A study of shell elements versus hexahe-

dral elements is also described in this chapter. Chapter 4 details all aspects

of the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model and results from analy-

sis in Abaqus while Chapter 5 illustrates all aspects of the abdominal aortic
aneurysm model and results from analysis in Abaqus. Finally, Chapter 6 sum-
marizes the conclusions made in this project and gives suggestions for future

work.

17
Chapter 2

Nonlinear Theory

2.1 Kinematics

2.1.1 Motion

Consider a body B as a set of points referred to as particles, or mate-


rial points, which have a one-to-one correspondence with points in a three-
dimensional Euclidean space. We denote such a region as a configuration of the

body. In the reference configuration the body B occupies a three-dimensional


region Br , in the current configuration the region is denoted by Bt .

To describe the motion of B we introduce appropriate coordinate systems


in the reference and current configurations. In the reference configuration

we define a fixed rectangular Cartesian coordinate system by the origin O

and by the unit vectors E1 , E2 , E3 . The position of a point P ∈ B in the

reference configuration is then specified by the position vector of X ≡ κ(P, 0)

in the region Br . In the current configuration we similarly define a Cartesian

coordinate system with origin o and unit vectors e1 , e2 , e3 . The position of


the same point P in the current configuration is given by the position vector

x ≡ κ(P, t) with respect to the unit vectors e1 , e2 , e3 . These two coordinate

18
Figure 2.1: One-to-one correspondence of body B describing the motion.

systems can be identical but often it is convenient to differentiate between

them for nonlinear analysis.

Suppose the application of mechanical loads move the body so that the
generic point X of B occupies the new position x = χ(X) in the deformed con-
figuration Bt . The vector field χ, which is a one-to-one, orientation-preserving
mapping describes the motion of the body. The motion from the reference

configuration Br to the current configuration Bt is given in component form

by

x1 = χ1 (X1 , X2 , X3 )

x2 = χ2 (X1 , X2 , X3 ) (2.1)

x3 = χ3 (X1 , X2 , X3 ),

or

xi = χi (Xα ). (2.2)

19
The triple (X1 , X2 , X3 ) or Xα , where α = 1, 2, 3, serves to identify the different

points of the body and are known as material coordinates.


The motion χ of the body will generally change its shape, position and

orientation. A body able to change its shape is said to be deformable. Some


examples of motion for simple loading conditions are below.

Uniaxial extension in 1-direction and lateral contraction constrained in 2-


and 3-directions is given by

x = χ(X) = (1 + β)X1 e1 + X2 e2 + X3 e3 . (2.3)

Equi-biaxial extension in 1- and 2-directions and lateral contraction con-

strained in 3-direction is given by

x = χ(X) = (1 + β)X1 e1 + (1 + β)X2 e2 + X3 e3 . (2.4)

Simple shear in 1-2 plane is given by

x = χ(X) = (X1 + βX2 )e1 + X2 e2 + X3 e3 . (2.5)

β in equations (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5) is defined as a given constant which

controls the magnitude of deformations.

2.1.2 Gradient, Divergence

Let φ, u, and T be scalar, vector, and tensor functions of the position x.

The gradient or grad operates on these functions with respect to the current

configuration as defined as

∂φ
gradφ ≡ ∇φ = ei . (2.6)
∂xi

20
∂u
gradu ≡ ∇ ⊗ u = ⊗ eq
∂xq

= (up ep ) ⊗ eq
∂xq
∂up
= ep ⊗ eq . (2.7)
∂xq

∂T
gradT ≡ ∇ ⊗ T = ⊗ ei
∂xi

= (Tpq ep ⊗ eq ) ⊗ ei
∂xi
∂Tpq
= ep ⊗ eq ⊗ ei . (2.8)
∂xi

Note that the gradient increases the order of the function. As seen above, the

gradient of a scalar is a vector, the gradient of a vector is a tensor and the


gradient of a tensor is a third order tensor. Also, the gradient with lowercase

g operates with respect to the current configuration as denoted by the partial


derivative with respect to the lowercase x. The Gradient with uppercase G,
by definition, operates on the reference configuration.

The divergence or div also operates on the vector and tensor functions of
the position. Note that the divergence of a scalar does not exist since the
divergence decreases order. Thus the divergence of a vector is a scalar and the
divergence of a tensor is a vector.

∂u
divu ≡ ∇ · u = · ei
∂xi

= (uj ej ) · ei
∂xi
∂uj
= ej · ei
∂xi
∂uj
= δij
∂xi
∂ui
= , (2.9)
∂xi

21
where δij is the Kronecker delta. It is equal to one when i = j and it is

equal to zero otherwise. There are two ways to define the divergence of a
tensor field. We define divergence of a tensor field by summing over the first

index, see Ogden 1997. Holzapfel (2000) defines the divergence operator as
the summation over the second index.

∂T
divT ≡ ∇ · T = · ei
∂xi

= (Tjk ej ⊗ ek ) · ei
∂xi
∂Tjk
= ek (ej · ei )
∂xi
∂Tjk
= ek δij
∂xi
∂Tik
= ei . (2.10)
∂xi

2.1.3 Deformation Gradient

The deformation gradient is a quantity which includes the description of


motion, χ, from a reference configuration to a current configuration. It can be

used to transform several quantities from one configuration to another. Recall

that the Gradient operates on the reference configuration which is denoted by


the partial derivative with respect to the uppercase X.

Consider a body B in the reference configuration Br that moves to the

current configuration Bt . A typical point X moves to the current position x


and thus it undergoes a displacement u.

x = X + u(X). (2.11)

In order to describe the deformation locally, consider a neighboring point

22
X + dX that moves to x + dx. This can be written as

x + dx = X + dX + u(X + dX). (2.12)

Subtracting equation (2.11) from equation (2.12) gives

dx = dX + u(X + dX) − u(X). (2.13)

Using the definition of grad of a vector,

dx = dX + Gradu dX = (I + Gradu) dX = Gradx dX = F dX, (2.14)

where Gradx is a second-order tensor known as the deformation gradient. The


local nature of the deformation is therefore embedded in the properties of the
tensor F. The deformation gradient tensor is non-singular since FdX 6= 0
for all dX 6= 0. This imposes the restriction that the determinant of F, here

denoted as det F, is not equal to zero. Since the determinant is non zero, F
can be inverted to give F−1 .

The components of the deformation gradient with respect to a Cartesian


coordinate system are
 
∂u1 ∂u1 ∂u1
 ∂X1 ∂X2 ∂X3 
 
 
 
 
 ∂u2 ∂u2 ∂u2 
Gradu = 
 ∂X
. (2.15)
 1 ∂X2 ∂X3 

 
 
 
 ∂u3 ∂u3 ∂u3 
∂X1 ∂X2 ∂X3

The Cartesian components of the deformation gradient tensor F = Gradx

23
are  
∂x1 ∂x1 ∂x1
 ∂X1 ∂X2 ∂X3 
 
 
 
 
 ∂x2 ∂x2 ∂x2 
F=
 ∂X
. (2.16)
 1 ∂X2 ∂X3 

 
 
 
 ∂x3 ∂x3 ∂x3 
∂X1 ∂X2 ∂X3
It should also be noted that the deformation gradient is not symmetric

and is positive definite. Some examples of the deformation gradient for simple
loading conditions are below. Please refer to the motions described for these

loading conditions in equations (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5).

The components of the deformation gradient for uniaxial extension in 1-

direction and lateral contraction constrained in 2- and 3-directions is given


by
 
(1 + β) 0 0
 
 
 
 
 
F=
 0 1 0. (2.17)
 
 
 
 
0 0 1

The components of the deformation gradient for equi-biaxial extension in


1- and 2-directions and lateral contraction constrained in 3-direction is given

by
 
(1 + β) 0 0
 
 
 
 
 
F=
 0 (1 + β) 0 
. (2.18)
 
 
 
 
0 0 1

The components of the deformation gradient for simple shear in 1-2 plane

24
is given by
 
1 β 0
 
 
 
 
 
F = 0 1 0

. (2.19)
 
 
 
 
0 0 1

2.1.4 Nanson’s Formula

Consider a parallelepiped in Br formed by line elements dX, dX0 and dX00

at X. The volume is given by

dV = dX · (dX0 × dX00 ) = det(dX dX0 dX00 ). (2.20)

After some deformation, the corresponding volume element becomes

dv = dx · (dx0 × dx00 ) = det(dx dx0 dx00 )

= det(FdX FdX0 FdX00 )

= det(F) det(dX dX0 dX00 ). (2.21)

Alternatively, equation (2.21) can be written as

dv = JdV, (2.22)

where the determinate of the deformation gradient has been denoted by J, i.e.

J = det F.

If the volume does not change locally during deformation, then at X

J ≡ det F = 1, (2.23)

25
Figure 2.2: Deformation of a volume element from the reference configuration
Br to the current configuration Bt .

and the deformation is said to be isochoric at X. If equation (2.23) is satisfied

for all X in Br then the deformation of the body is isochoric. For biological

tissues, we assume that equation (2.23) is satisfied.


Consider an infinitesimal area element dA in Br that deforms into the
infinitesimal area element da in Bt . Let X be a point on dA and x the

corresponding point on da. Also, let dX be a material line element with

image dx under the deformation F. Using equation (2.20), we write

dv = da · dx = JdV = JdA · dX, (2.24)

where da = nda and dA = NdA denoting vector elements defined in the

current and reference configurations respectively. Equation (2.24) may be

written as
(FT da − J dA) · dX = 0. (2.25)

This equation shows that the infinitesimal areas da and dA in the current and

reference configurations are related by

da = J F−T dA,

n da = J F−T N dA, (2.26)

26
which is known as Nanson’s formula and applies to area elements of arbitrary

shape.

Figure 2.3: Deformation of an area element from the reference configuration


Br to the current configuration Bt .

2.1.5 Polar Decomposition

Let F be the deformation gradient with det F > 0. Then there exists unique,
positive definite, symmetric tensors, U and V, and a proper orthogonal tensor
R such that

F = RU = VR, (2.27)

where U and V are the right and left stretch tensors respectively and R is the
rotation tensor. It follows that

det F = det U = det V. (2.28)

A small line element dX of material at X under the deformation F is

transformed into dx at x which consists of the same material as dX at X.


Using equations (2.27) and (2.28), we have

dx = RUdX = R(UdX), (2.29)

27
dx = VRdX = V(RdX). (2.30)

It should be noted that the eigenvalues of U and V are the principal


stretches. The eigenvectors of U and V, denoted respectively u and v, are
connected by v = Ru. The right and left stretch tensors have the spectral

form

U = λ1 u(1) ⊗ u(1) + λ2 u(2) ⊗ u(2) + λ3 u(3) ⊗ u(3) ,

V = λ1 v(1) ⊗ v(1) + λ2 v(2) ⊗ v(2) + λ3 v(3) ⊗ v(3) . (2.31)

2.1.6 Strain Tensors

The deformation gradient is the fundamental tensor in nonlinear kinematics


that characterizes changes in elements during a given motion. These changes
can also be described through strain tensors. As in linear solid mechanics,

strain is not a measurable quantity as displacement is; it is based on a concept.

The following equations define the most common strain tensors in nonlinear
solid mechanics.

Consider two neighboring points in the reference configuration, X and Y.

The geometry is described by

Y = X + dX,

dε = |Y − X|,
Y−X
a0 = ,
|Y − X|
dX = a0 dε. (2.32)

After a given motion, those same two points in the current configuration are

28
described by

x = χ(X),

y = χ(Y) = χ(X + dεa0 )

= χ(X) + dεF(X)a0 ,

y − x = F(X)(Y − X). (2.33)

Now define the stretch vector λa0 in the direction of a0 as

λa0 = F(X)a0 . (2.34)

The length of the above stretch vector is λ = |λa0 | and is called the stretch

of the material in the direction a0 . Using the above relations

|y − x| = [(y − x) · (y − x)]1/2 = (λa0 · λa0 )1/2 dε = λdε. (2.35)

The square of λ is computed as

λ2 = λa0 · λa0 = Fa0 · Fa0

= a0 · FT Fa0 = a0 · Ca0 ,

where C = FT F. (2.36)

C is defined as the right Cauchy-Green tensor, is symmetric and positive


definite. The left Cauchy-Green tensor is denoted by b and is defined as

b = FFT . (2.37)

The left and right Cauchy-Green tensors can also be defined using the left
and right stretch tensors. The left and right Cauchy-Green tensors are give in

29
component form as

Cαγ = (Riβ Uβα )(Riε Uεγ ) = Uβα Riβ Riε Uεγ = Uβα δεβ Uεγ = Uεα Uεγ ,

bij = (Vin Rnα )(Vjm Rmα ) = Vin Rnα Rmα Vjm = Vin δnm Vjm

= Vim Vjm . (2.38)

Using index notation above, it is easy to see that C is in the reference config-
uration because all the subscripts are Greek while b is in the current configu-
ration since all the subscripts are Roman. In tensor notation equation (2.38)

is written as

C = U2 ,

b = V2 . (2.39)

Another important strain tensor is denoted by E and is called the Green


strain tensor.
1¡ T ¢
E= F F−I , (2.40)
2

where 1/2 is a normalization factor and if E = 0 then the material is not


strained.

2.2 Conservation of Mass

As the region Bt moves, the total mass of the material remains constant. In

order to derive an expression for the conservation of mass, the rate of change

30
of volume is first necessary and is described as

∂J ∂J ∂F
=
∂t ∂F ∂t
∂J ∂Fiα −1 −1
= = JFαi Ḟiα = J(Fαi Ḟiα ) = JLii = Jdivv
∂Fiα ∂t
= Jdivv. (2.41)

In the expression used above, Lii is the trace of the velocity gradient. The

velocity gradient is defined as gradv = L and is developed below

µ ¶
∂vi ∂ ∂xi ∂Xα ∂ ẋi ∂Xα −1
Lij = = = = Ḟiα Fαj ,
∂xj ∂t ∂Xα ∂xj ∂Xα ∂xj

and in tensor notation has the form

L = ḞF−1 . (2.42)

L is not symmetric but can be broken up into two separate tensors, D


which is symmetric and W which is anti-symmetric as shown below

L = D + W,
1
D = (L + LT ),
2
1
W = (L − LT ). (2.43)
2

D describes how fast a body is stretching while W describes how fast a body

is rotating.
The conservation of mass can now be described as

Z Z
∂ ∂
ρdv = ρJdV = 0. (2.44)
∂t Bt ∂t Br

31
Z Z
∂ ˙
ρJdV = (ρ̇J + ρJ)dV
∂t Br ZBr
= (ρ̇J + ρJdivv)dV
ZBr
= (ρ̇ + ρdivv)JdV
ZBr
= (ρ̇ + ρdivv)dv
Bt
⇒ ρ̇ + ρdivv = 0, (2.45)

where ρ is the mass density. Note that equation (2.22) is used to transform a
differential volume from the current configuration, dv, to the reference config-

uration, dV .

2.3 Conservation of Momentum

Newton defined the Principal of Conservation of Linear Momentum, com-


monly known as Newton’s Second Law, as the equilibrium condition where
the change of linear momentum, ∂M/∂t, must be equal to the total applied
R
force, F, where M is the total linear momentum and is defined as ρvdv.

Do not confuse the F here with the deformation gradient. For nonlinear solid
mechanics, Newton’s Second Law can be described by the following equations

where the applied forces are the body forces, b, and surface tractions, t. Let
the surface in the reference configuration be defined as Sr and as St in the

current configuration. The resultant force F is given by

Z Z
F= ρbdv + tda. (2.46)
Bt St

32
The change in linear momentum can be written as

Z Z
∂M ∂ ∂
= ρvdv = ρvJdV
∂t ∂t
Z B t
∂t B r

= (ρ̇vJ + ρv̇J + ρvJ)dV˙


ZBr
= (ρ̇vJ + ρv̇J + ρvJdivv)dV
ZB r Z
= (ρ̇ + ρdivv)vJdV + ρv̇JdV
ZBr Br

= ρv̇dv, (2.47)
Bt

where the equation for conservation of mass (2.45) has been used. The change

in linear momentum can now be set equal to the total applied force to produce

the conservation of linear momentum below

Z Z Z
ρv̇dv = ρbdv + tda. (2.48)
Bt Bt St

A similar equilibrium condition that should be additionally satisfied is de-

scribed below. This equilibrium condition sets equal the change in angular
momentum to the total applied moments. The applied moments, G, are with

respect to an arbitrary point, x, due to the applied body forces, b, and surface
tractions, t, and has the form

Z Z
G= x × ρbdv + x × tda. (2.49)
Bt St

The total angular momentum is denoted by H and has the form

Z
H= x × (ρv)dv. (2.50)
Bt

33
The change in angular momentum is defined as

Z
∂H
= x × ρv̇dv. (2.51)
∂t Bt

Setting equal equation (2.51) and equation (2.49) yields

Z Z Z
x × ρv̇dv = x × ρbdv + x × tda, (2.52)
Bt Bt St

which is the conservation of angular momentum.

2.4 Stress Tensors

Consider a body B in the deformed configuration Bt subject to external


loading. Imagine a plane surface separating the body into two parts. We
denote an arbitrary point on that surface, St , by x and the unit normal vector
by n. Since we consider interaction of the two parts, forces will be transmitted

across this surface.

Let (t, b) be a system of surface forces and body forces for a body, B, during
a motion. A necessary and sufficient condition for the momentum balance
equations (2.48) and (2.52) to be satisfied is that there exists a second-order

tensor σ, called the Cauchy stress tensor, such that

t = σ T n. (2.53)

Also note that the Cauchy stress is symmetric. An extension of equilibrium

34
equation (2.48) can be developed by using equation (2.53)

Z Z Z
T
ρbdv + σ nda = ρv̇dv
Bt Z S t Z B t

(ρb + divσ)dv = ρv̇dv


Bt Bt
divσ + ρb = ρa, (2.54)

where the divergence theorem has been used to convert the surface integral
into a volume integral. This is called Cauchy’s first equation of motion.

Let T be the traction vector in the reference configuration in the same


direction as t and let N be the normal vector in the reference configuration.

Also let da and dA be the differential areas in the current and reference con-

figurations, respectively. Using Nanson’s formula, it follows that

tda = TdA

σ T nda = TdA

Jσ T F−T NdA = PNdA

⇒ P = JσF−T . (2.55)

P is called the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor and it is not symmetric. The
transpose of P, PT , is often called the nominal stress tensor and is given by

PT = JF−1 σ. The second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor is denoted by S and

is equal to F−1 P. The second Piola-Kirchhoff stress is defined in the reference

configuration and is symmetric. There is no single convention for which stress


tensor should be used but once one is known, any of the others may be quickly

determined.

35
2.5 Energy

In elementary mechanics, kinetic energy is defined as 1/2mv 2 where m is


the mass and v is the velocity. The rate of work, power, is defined as the

product of f and v where f is the force. In nonlinear solid mechanics, kinetic


energy is defined as
Z
1
K= ρv · vdv. (2.56)
Bt 2

The rate of work, power, is defined using equation (2.53). The fact that

σ is symmetric means that we do not need to consider the transpose of σ in

equation (2.53). Additionally, we use the divergence theorem to produce

Z Z
P = v · ρbdv + t · vda
ZBt ZSt
= ρv · bdv + σn · vda
ZBt ZSt
= ρv · bdv + σv · nda
ZBt St

= [ρv · b + div(σv)]dv. (2.57)


Bt

An expression for div(σv) is derived as

∂σij vj ∂σij ∂vj


= vj + σij
∂xi ∂xi ∂xi
∂σij
= vj + σij Lji
∂xi
∂σij
= vj + σij (Dji + Wji )
∂xi
∂σij
= vj + σij Dji , (2.58)
∂xi

where σij Wji = 0 was applied since W is anti-symmetric. In tensor notation

div(σv) = divσ · v + tr(σD). (2.59)

36
Equation (2.59) was developed using equations (2.58) and (2.54) along with

the fact that ρdv = ρr dV .

Z
P = [ρv · b + (divσ) · v + tr(σD)]dv
ZBt
= [(ρb + divσ) · v + tr(σD)]dv
ZBt
= [ρv̇ · v + tr(σD)]dv
ZBt Z
1 ∂
= ρ (v · v)dv + tr(σD)dv
ZBt 2 ∂t BZt
1 ∂
= ρr (v · v)dV + tr(σD)dv
Br 2 ∂t
Z Bt

= K+ tr(σD)dv, (2.60)
∂t Bt

where equation (2.54) has been used. The second term in equation (2.60) is

the stored or dissipated energy in the system. A hyperelastic material assumes


the existence of a Helmholtz free-energy function W where W is often solely
a function of F and is then called a strain energy function. A hyperelastic
material is considered for this research and therefore let

Z Z
tr(σD)dv = Jtr(σD)dV, (2.61)
Bt Br

with
Jtr(σD) = (∂/∂t)W (F). (2.62)

Equation (2.60) is then modified to


P = [K + W (F)]. (2.63)
∂t

In index notation, the following is a derivation of a constitutive equation which

37
relates σ and F using equation (2.62).

∂W ∂Fiα
Jσji Lij =
∂Fiα ∂t
∂W
= Ḟiα
∂Fiα
∂W
= Lij Fjα
∂Fiα
∂W
Jσij = Fjα
∂Fiα
∂W
σij = J −1 Fjα . (2.64)
∂Fiα

2.6 Objectivity

For every material, the associated strain energy function must be objective.
This means that in the current configuration, if you apply a rigid body mo-

tion (rotation), there cannot be a change in strain energy. Consider the line
elements in the current and reference configurations, dx and dX, respectively
and a rigid body rotation in the current configuration, Q.

dx = FdX,

dx0 = Qdx

dx0 = QFdX. (2.65)

Apply the constraint that W (F) = W (QF) must be satisfied for every Q.

Also let Q = RT and recall F = RU.

W (QF) = W (RT RU) = W (U). (2.66)

Now recall that C = U2 therefore the strain energy depends only on

the right stretch tensor (equivalently the right Cauchy-Green tensor), i.e.

38
W (U) → W (C). We cannot simply replace ∂W/∂F with ∂W/∂C in the

equation for the Cauchy stress. Using the chain rule

∂W ∂W ∂(Fiα Fiβ )
=
∂Fjγ ∂Cαβ µ ∂Fjγ ¶
∂W ∂Fiα ∂Fiβ
= Fiβ + Fiα
∂Cαβ ∂Fjγ ∂Fjγ
∂W
= (δij δαγ Fiβ + δij δβγ Fiα )
∂Cαβ
∂W ∂W
= Fjβ + Fjα
∂Cγβ ∂Cγα
∂W
=2 Fjβ . (2.67)
∂Cγβ

Now equation (2.64) can be updated to

∂W
σij = 2J −1 Fiβ Fjα . (2.68)
∂Cβα

It is convenient to introduce the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor, which

here is denominated S. It is a symmetric stress measure defined in the reference


configuration by

∂W ∂W
S=2 , Sαβ = Sβα = 2 . (2.69)
∂C ∂Cαβ

The expression for the Cauchy stress (2.68) can now be written as

σij = J −1 Fiβ Sβα Fjα . (2.70)

Inverting equation (2.70) gives the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress in terms

of the Cauchy stress


−1 −1
Sβα = JFβi σij Fαj , (2.71)

39
which in tensor notation has the form

S = JF−1 σF−T . (2.72)

2.7 Isotropy, Anisotropy

It is convenient to use the invariants of the right Cauchy-Green tensor C,

equivalently left Cauchy-Green tensor b, as independent measures of deforma-


tion. The invariants, denoted as I1 , I2 , I3 , are defined by

I1 = trC,
1£ 2 ¤
I2 = I1 − tr(C2 ) ,
2
I3 = det C. (2.73)

These can alternatively be expressed in terms of principal stretches λ1 , λ2 and

λ3 as

I1 = λ21 + λ22 + λ23 ,

I2 = λ21 λ22 + λ22 λ23 + λ21 λ23 ,

I3 = λ21 λ22 λ23 . (2.74)

An isotropic material is a material whose properties are the same in all

directions. If this is true, then the strain energy function may be written in

terms of the above three invariants or three principal stretches.

An anisotropic material is a material whose properties are not the same

in all directions. Fiber-reinforced materials are a good example of anisotropic


materials. Biological tissues are fiber-reinforced materials consisting of one or

two families of fibers. In this case, additional invariants must be considered in

40
the strain energy function in order to fully characterize the material.

Let A be a unit vector describing the fiber direction in the reference con-
figuration. Note that A = Ai Ei and A · A = 1. The vector FA is no longer a

unit vector as it has rotated and changed length. Let a be a vector describing
the fiber direction in the current configuration. The change in length is then

described as
λa = FA. (2.75)

The square of the length of the fiber in the current configuration is

(λa) · (λa) = (FA) · (FA). (2.76)

λ2 = A · FT FA = A · CA. (2.77)

If there was only one family of fibers, then the material is said to be trans-
versely isotropic. The first set of fibers can be described using invariants I4

and I5 . I4 is the square of the change in fiber length but I5 has no such physical

interpretation

I4 = A · CA,

I5 = A · C2 A. (2.78)

If there is a second family of fibers, they can be described using invariants


I6 and I7 . I6 is the square of the change in fiber length but I7 has no such

physical interpretation. Additionally, invariants that deal with the interaction

between the two families of fibers, I8 and I9 , are considered.

Let the second family of fibers be defined exactly as the first except with

41
the vector notation A0 versus A.

I6 = A0 · CA0 ,

I7 = A0 · C2 A0 ,

I8 = A · CA0 ,

I9 = (A · A0 )2 , (2.79)

where the invariant I9 does not depend on the deformation and will therefore

no longer be considered. The chain rule must be used again to develop an


expression for ∂W/∂C as

∂W ∂W ∂I1 ∂W ∂I2 ∂W ∂I3 ∂W ∂I4 ∂W ∂I5


= + + + +
∂Cαβ ∂I1 ∂Cαβ ∂I2 ∂Cαβ ∂I3 ∂Cαβ ∂I4 ∂Cαβ ∂I5 ∂Cαβ
∂W ∂I6 ∂W ∂I7 ∂W ∂I8
+ + + . (2.80)
∂I6 ∂Cαβ ∂I7 ∂Cαβ ∂I8 ∂Cαβ

The partial derivatives of the invariants with respect to the right Cauchy-Green
tensor are

∂I1 ∂Cγγ
= = δγα δγβ = δαβ ,
∂Cαβ ∂C ·αβ
¸
∂I2 1 ∂I1 ∂
= 2I1 − (Cεγ Cεγ )
∂Cαβ 2 ∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ
1
= (2I1 δαβ − 2δαε δβγ Cεγ )
2
= I1 δαβ − Cαβ ,
∂I3 −1
= I3 Cαβ ,
∂Cαβ
∂I4 ∂(Aγ Cγε Aε )
= = Aγ δγα δεβ Aε = Aα Aβ ,
∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ

42
∂I5 ∂(Aγ Cγπ Cπε Aε )
= = Aγ δγα δπβ Cπε Aε
∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ
+Aγ Cγπ δπα δ²β Aε

= Aα Cβε Aε + Aγ Cγα Aβ ,
∂I6 ∂(A0γ Cγε A0ε )
= = A0γ δγα δεβ A0ε = A0α A0β ,
∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ
∂I7 ∂(A0γ Cγπ Cπε A0ε )
= = A0γ δγα δπβ Cπε A0ε
∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ
+A0γ Cγπ δπα δ²β A0ε

= A0α Cβε A0ε + A0γ Cγα A0β ,


∂I8 ∂(Aγ Cγε ) 0 ∂(Cγε A0ε )
= Aε + Aγ
∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ
= Aγ δγα δεβ A0ε + δγα δεβ A0ε Aγ = Aα A0β + A0β Aα . (2.81)

For simplification, I5 , I7 and I8 are often ignored in strain energy function

formulations.

2.8 Compressibility

Incompressibility means that there is no change in volume so that J =


det F = 1 and I3 = 1 which implies that the strain energy function is modified
to
f = W (F) − p(J − 1),
W (2.82)

where p is a scalar pressure that can be determined from the applied boundary

conditions.

The first Piola-Kirchhoff stress can be written as

∂W −1
Piα = − pFαi , (2.83)
∂Fiα

43
where we have used
∂J −1 −1
= JFαi = Fαi . (2.84)
∂Fiα

The resulting equation for the Cauchy stress is

f µ ¶
∂W ∂W −1
σij = Fjα = − pFαi Fjα
∂Fiα ∂Fiα
∂W
= Fjα − pδij . (2.85)
∂Fiα

If a material is compressible, then there is a change in volume so that

J = det F 6= 1 and I3 6= 1. The strain energy function is then decomposed

into
W (F) = W (F̄) + W (J). (2.86)

The first term on the right hand side describes the incompressible portion while
the second term describes the change in volume. Multiplicative decomposition
is used to decompose the deformation gradient into an incompressible portion

and a compressible portion as demonstrated below

F = J 1/3 F̄, where det F̄ = 1,

C = J 2/3 C̄. (2.87)

Recall the general equation for Cauchy stress

∂W T
σ = J −1 F , (2.88)
∂F

and
∂W ∂W
=2 F. (2.89)
∂F ∂C

44
Now due to compressibility, the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress becomes

µ ¶
∂W ∂ C̄γε ∂W ∂J
Sαβ = 2 + . (2.90)
∂ C̄γε ∂Cαβ ∂J ∂Cαβ

Now to find ∂J/∂Cαβ , we first find an expression for ∂J/∂Fiε

∂J ∂J ∂Cαβ
=
∂Fiε ∂Cαβ µ∂Fiε ¶
∂J ∂Fnα ∂Fnβ
= Fnβ + Fnα
∂Cαβ ∂Fiε ∂Fiε
∂J
= (δin δαε Fnβ + Fnα δin δεβ )
∂Cαβ
∂J
= (δαε Fiβ + δεβ Fiα )
∂Cαβ
∂J ∂J
= Fiβ + Fiα
∂Cεβ ∂Cαε
∂J
=2 Fiα . (2.91)
∂Cαε

Solving for ∂J/∂Cαε yields

∂J 1 ∂J −1
= F
∂Cαβ 2 ∂Fiβ αi
1 −1 −1
= JFβi Fαi
2
1 −1
= JCαβ . (2.92)
2

45
Next find ∂ C̄γε /∂Cαβ as

∂ C̄γε ∂(J −2/3 Cγε )


=
∂Cαβ ∂Cαβ
∂J −2/3 ∂Cγε −2/3
= Cγε + J
·∂C αβ
µ ∂C αβ
¶¸
2 −5/3 1 −1
= − J JC Cγε + J −2/3 δγα δεβ
3 2 αβ
1 −1
= − J −2/3 Cαβ Cγε + J −2/3 δγα δεβ
3 µ ¶
−2/3 1 −1
=J − Cαβ Cγε + δγα δεβ . (2.93)
3

Substituting equations (2.92) and (2.93) into equation (2.90) yields

µ · µ ¶¸ µ ¶¶
∂W −2/3 1 −1 ∂W 1 −1
Sαβ = 2 J δγα δεβ − Cαβ Cγε + JC (2.94)
∂ C̄γε 3 ∂J 2 αβ

Now let S̄γε = 2(∂W/∂ C̄γε ) and (∂W/∂J) = p. This results in

µ ¶
−2/3 1 −1 −1
Sαβ = J δγα δ²β − Cαβ Cγε S̄γε + pJCαβ , (2.95)
3

where the first term in this equation is the deviatoric component while the
second term is the hydrostatic component.

46
Chapter 3

Abaqus Initial Models

3.1 Single Hex Element

Abaqus is a nonlinear finite element analysis package used in this research.


In Abaqus, there are several steps listed below that must be completed before

a job can be submitted for analysis.

Part : Create geometry or import part.


Material : Define material properties.
Section : Define section properties with previously defined material and as-
sign to part.
Analysis Step : Create analysis step(s) with desired convergence criteria.
Output : Choose which field/history output is desired for which regions.
Assembly : Create instances of all parts and apply any necessary constraints.
Boundary Conditions : Create desired boundary conditions during appro-
priate analysis step(s).
Loads : Create desired loads during appropriate analysis step(s).
Mesh : Create desired mesh using a variety of techniques.
Job : Create job and submit for analysis.

47
The first model used to become acquainted with Abaqus was a one ele-

ment cube with dimensions of 1 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch and a uniaxial loading
condition. The uniform displacement of 1 inch was applied to the top sur-

face in order to create a λ = 2. A built-in classic nonlinear elastic material


called neo-Hookean was used. The two values used for material parameters,

C10 and D1, were 1 and 0.0001 respectively. These material parameters are
explained in more detail in Section 3.3. The element type was an 8-noded hex

element, C3D8, which has a node at each corner of element. The boundary
conditions can be seen in Figure 3.1 where the letters shown for each of the

bottom four nodes are the constrained displacement directions. The deformed

configuration can be seen in Figure 3.2 where the light gray cube represents the

undeformed element while the dark gray cube depicts the deformed element.

Figure 3.1: Boundary conditions for the uniaxially loaded, single element
Abaqus model.

48
Figure 3.2: Deformed configuration of the uniaxially loaded, single element
Abaqus model.

The results obtained are the total force versus stretch, Cauchy stress σ
versus stretch and first Piola-Kirchhoff stress P versus stretch. The one anal-
ysis step which included the applied displacement consisted of a step time of 1
and a fixed time increment of 0.1. Hand calculations were performed to verify

Abaqus results using the following equations.

Ft = 4F,
u + Lo
λ= ,
Lo
Ft
P= ,
Ao
Ft
σ= = λP. (3.1)
Ac

where Lo = 1 inch, Ao = 1 inch2 , F is the force at each bottom node, u is

the displacement in direction of loading and Ac is the current area. These last

three quantities are output reported from Abaqus at each of the 10 step time
increments. Note that for this particular case, the nominal stress is equivalent

49
to the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress, P. The resulting graphs can be seen in

Figures 3.3 through 3.5.

Total Force vs. Stretch


3

2.5

2
Total Force (lb)

1.5

0.5

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stretch λ

Figure 3.3: Total force versus stretch for a single element Abaqus model.

50
First Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Stretch
3

2.5
First Piola−Kirchhoff Stress (psi)

1.5

0.5

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stretch λ

Figure 3.4: First Piola-Kirchhoff stress versus stretch for a single element
Abaqus model.

Cauchy Stress vs. Stretch


6

4
Cauchy Stress (psi)

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stretch λ

Figure 3.5: Cauchy stress versus stretch for a single element Abaqus model.

51
Since the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress is defined as the total force divided

by the original area, it makes sense that this graph matches the total force
versus stretch graph. Cauchy stress is defined as the total force divided by the

current area where for this loading condition, the current area is less than the
original area. Therefore this graph is reasonable since the values for stress are

larger than the ones displayed for the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress.

3.2 Multiple Hex Elements

The second model analyzed in Abaqus is exactly the same as the first single

element model except that eleven elements are used to model the 1 inch x 1
inch x 1 inch cube. Each element is an 8-noded hex element, C3D8, as shown
in Figure 3.6. Again the letters shown for each of the bottom four nodes are
the constrained displacement directions. The uniform displacement of 1 inch

was applied to the top surface in order to create a λ = 2. The deformed

elements can be seen in Figure 3.7 where the light gray cube represents the
undeformed elements while the dark gray cube depicts the deformed elements.

Figure 3.6: Boundary conditions for uniaxially loaded, multi-element Abaqus


model.

52
Figure 3.7: Deformed configuration of a uniaxially loaded, multi-element
Abaqus model.

The results are reported for the middle element and equations (3.1) are
again used but with Lo = 1/11 inch. The results from this model matched the
results from the single element model as they should.

3.3 UMAT

Abaqus gives the user the option to program his/her own material model

with Fortran programming language in a user subroutine, UMAT. A neo-


Hookean UMAT was slightly modified from an Abaqus example file and can
be seen in Figures 3.8 through 3.11.

53
Figure 3.8: UMAT for neo-Hookean material model.

54
Figure 3.9: UMAT for neo-Hookean material model.

55
Figure 3.10: UMAT for neo-Hookean material model.

56
Figure 3.11: UMAT for neo-Hookean material model.

57
C10 and D1 are two values that are extracted from the Abaqus pre-processor

and are shown in the Abaqus version of the strain energy function for the neo-
Hookean material below as

1
W = C10 (I¯1 − 3) + (J − 1)2 , (3.2)
D1

where C10 is the stiffness of the material in the reference configuration while
the value of D1 pertains to compressibility. The first invariant of the right

deviatoric Cauchy-Green tensor is I¯1 and is given by I¯1 = tr C̄, where C̄ is


defined in equation (2.87). If the material is incompressible, then the value of

D1 would be zero. Since allowing D1 to be exactly zero would introduce a

numerical instability, a small value, 0.0001, is chosen to approximate incom-


pressibility.

Besides inputting the values for C10 and D1 into the pre-processor, two
other items must be modified in order for an analysis to successfully run with

a UMAT. In the material module, a user material must be specified and a


value for depvar must be set. Depvar is a variable that allocates space at each
integration point for solution-dependent state variables. Setting this value to
1 is sufficient for the allocation of memory during a typical analysis.

The single element and multi-element uniaxially loaded Abaqus models


were analyzed using a neo-Hookean UMAT and the results matched the built-in

neo-Hookean material model as they should. Again the values for the material

parameters C10 and D1 used were 1 and 0.0001, respectively.


There are two important equations that are necessary to program in a

UMAT. These two equations for a neo-Hookean material are described in

Abaqus Example Problems manual section 1.1.14 and can be seen in equa-

58
tions (3.3) and (3.5).

· ¸
2 1 2
σ = C10 b̄ − tr(b̄)I + (J − 1)I. (3.3)
J 3 D1

This is the Abaqus form for Cauchy stress. Recall the concept of multiplicative

decomposition when interpreting b̄ as

T
b̄ = F̄ F̄ . (3.4)

The next equation describes the material Jacobian, C, which is the variation
of stress with respect to deformation. The components of C are

· ¸
2 1¡ ¢ 2 2 2
Cijkl = C10 δik b̄jl + b̄ik δjl + δil b̄jk + b̄il δjk − δij b̄kl − b̄ij δkl + δij δkl b̄mm
J 2 3 3 9
2
+ (2J − 1)δij δkl . (3.5)
D1

Derivations of equations (3.3) and (3.5) can be seen below. The approach
taken here is the same in Abaqus.

∂W
σij = J −1 Fjα
∂F
µ iα ¶
−1 ∂W ∂ I¯1 ∂W ∂J
=J + Fjα . (3.6)
∂ I¯1 ∂Fiα ∂J ∂Fiα

I¯1 = J −2/3 I1 . (3.7)

b̄ij = J −2/3 bij . (3.8)

59
∂ I¯1 −2 −5/3 −1
= J JFαi I1 + J −2/3 2Fiα
∂Fiα 3 µ ¶
−2/3 1 −1
= 2J Fiα − I1 Fαi . (3.9)
3

∂J −1
= JFαi . (3.10)
∂Fiα

Substituting equations (3.9) and (3.10) into equation (3.6), and multiplying

both sides by J yields

µ ¶
∂W −2/3 1 −1 ∂W
Jσij = ¯ 2J Fiα − I1 Fαi Fjα + Jδij
∂ I1 µ 3 ¶ ∂J
−2/3 ∂W 1 ∂W
= 2J ¯ bij − I1 δij + Jδij
µ∂ I1 3¶ ∂J
∂W 1 ∂W
= 2 ¯ b̄ij − I¯1 δij + Jδij . (3.11)
∂ I1 3 ∂J

Let the neo-Hookean strain energy density function be defined as

µ ¯ k
W = (I1 − 3) + (J − 1)2 , (3.12)
2 2

where

∂W µ
= ,
∂ I¯1 2
∂W
= k(J − 1). (3.13)
∂J

Substituting equations (3.13) into equation (3.11) yields

µ ¶
1
Jσij = µ b̄ij − I¯1 δij + kJ(J − 1)δij . (3.14)
3

60
The above equation is comparable to equation (3.3) from the Abaqus manual.

The incremental form of this equation can be written as

Jσ˙ ij = JC : D, (3.15)

or more specifically

µ ¶
∂ b̄ij 1 ∂ I¯1 ∂J
Jσ˙ ij = µ Ḟnα − Ḟnα δij + k(2J − 1) Ḟnα δij . (3.16)
∂Fnα 3 ∂Fnα ∂Fnα

Rewrite b̄ij as
J −2/3 bij = J −2/3 Fiβ Fjβ . (3.17)

Also define

µ ¶
∂ b̄ij −2/3 2 −1
=J δin Fjα + δjn Fiα − Fαn bij . (3.18)
∂Fnα 3

µ ¶
∂ I¯1 −2/3 1 −1
= 2J Fnα − I1 Fαn . (3.19)
∂Fnα 3

∂J −1
= JFαn . (3.20)
∂Fnα

−1
Lnm = Ḟnα Ḟαm ˙ = Lnm Fmα .
⇒ Fnα (3.21)

61
Substituting equations (3.17) through (3.21) into equation (3.16) yields

µ ¶
∂ b̄ij 1 ∂ I¯1
Jσ˙ ij = µ − δij Fmα Lnm + kJ(2J − 1)δij δnm Lnm
· ∂F nα µ 3 ∂F nα ¶ µ ¶ ¸
−2/3 2 2 −2/3 I1
= µJ δin bjm + δjn bim − δnm bij − µJ bnm − δnm δij Lnm
3 3 3
+kJ(2J − 1)δij δnm Lnm
µ ¶ µ ¶
2 2 I¯1
= µ δin b̄jm + δjn b̄im − δnm b̄ij Lnm − µ b̄nm − δnm δij Lnm
3 3 3
+kJ(2J − 1)δij δnm Lnm
µ ¶
2 2 2¯
= µ δin b̄jm + δjn b̄im − δnm b̄ij − δij b̄nm + I1 δij δnm Lnm
3 3 9
+kJ(2J − 1)δij δnm Lnm . (3.22)

The right hand side of equation (3.22) is not symmetric. To obtain a symmetric
term, we use equation (2.43), which for convenience is here shown again

L = D + W,
1
D = (L + LT ),
2
1
W = (L − LT ). (3.23)
2

In other words, we replace L with D on the right hand side. This implies that
the term shown below will be replaced as

1
δin b̄jm + δjn b̄im ⇒ (δin b̄jm + δjn b̄im + δim b̄jn + δjm b̄in ). (3.24)
2

Now recall the incremental form of equation (3.14) and define C in com-

ponent form as

µ 1
Cijnm = [ (δin b̄jm + δjn b̄im + δim b̄jn + δjm b̄in )
J 2
2 2 2
− δnm b̄ij − δij b̄nm + I¯1 δij δnm ] + k(2J − 1)δij δnm . (3.25)
3 3 9

62
This equation is comparable to equation (3.5) recreated from the Abaqus man-

ual.

3.4 Shell Versus Solid Elements

One concern when using shell versus solid elements is the number of solid

elements required to obtain the same results as using shell elements. The
process by which the geometry for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model was
created in AutoCAD better allow the use for solid elements. Also, the analysis

solution is more likely to converge when using solid hex elements as opposed

to shell elements. Thus it is very important to know approximately how many

solid elements should be used in modeling the artery and aneurysm in order
to obtain accurate results.
At first, a cylinder model of length L = 100 inches, inner radius r = 12.7

inches and a thickness t = 2 inches is considered. The material is elastic and

isotropic with E = 29000 ksi and ν = 0.3. These geometric dimensions and
material properties are arbitrary. The boundary conditions are applied such
that the cylinder is allowed to expand and contract radially without any stress
concentrations. Two meshes are considered: shell elements and one layer of

hex elements. Both meshes contain the same number of elements and size

of elements. The first loading condition is an axial stretch of λ = 1.1. The


resulting maximum principal stress in both meshes can be seen in Figure 3.12.

The second loading condition considered is an inflation to a pressure p = 16

ksi. The resulting maximum principal stress in both meshes for this loading
condition can be seen in Figure 3.13.

63
Stress vs. Stretch

2500 Data for hex element mesh


Data for shell element mesh

2000
Axial Stress (ksi)

1500

1000

500

0
1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1
Axial Stretch λ

Figure 3.12: Axial stress versus axial stretch for the two mesh models in
Abaqus.

Stretch vs. Pressure


1.004
Data for hex element mesh, integration point 1
1.0035 Data for hex element mesh, integration point 2
Data for shell element mesh

1.003
Circumferential Stretch λ

1.0025

1.002

1.0015

1.001

1.0005

1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pressure (ksi)

Figure 3.13: Circumferential stretch versus pressure for the two mesh models
in Abaqus.

For the axial stretch loading condition, the stresses for the two meshes are

the same, as expected. For the inflation loading condition, the shell mesh

64
yields a value for maximum principal stress in the middle of the reported

values for maximum principal stress for the outer and inner surfaces of the
element in the hex mesh model, as it should. Using small strain theory, the

circumferential stress in the cylinder is given by

pr
σ= , (3.26)
t

where p is the applied internal pressure, r is the inner radius and t is the

original thickness. This theoretical result yields a value of 101.6 ksi which
closely matches the shell, 101.4 ksi, and hex, 102.3 ksi, mesh model results for

maximum stress. Also, consider the relation

σ = Eε, (3.27)

where E is the modulus of elasticity. Solving for strain ε yields a value of


0.0035 which is defined as the change in length divided by the original length.
The definition of λ is the current length divided by the original length so the
value of λ = 1.0035 is comparable to the value of ε = 0.0035. Since the hex

and shell mesh models both yield the same results in both loading conditions
and the fact that bending is not being analyzed here, a cantilever beam model
is next considered to compare bending effects. This model is a cantilever beam

with a point load applied at the tip while the other end is fixed.

Figure 3.14: Cantilever beam model in Abaqus.

65
As shown in Figure 3.14, P = 0.0001 kip, L = 10 inches, b =1 inch and t

= 0.1 inch. Let the material be linear elastic with E = 29000 psi and ν = 0.3.
The moment of inertia is calculated using I = (1/12)bt3 . The analytical result

for the tip displacement is shown below with no units as

P L3 (0.0001)(10)3
∆L = = = 0.0138. (3.28)
3EI 3(29000)(8.33)

Using shell elements of size 0.1, the Abaqus model is shown below.

Figure 3.15: Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using shell elements.

The resulting tip deflection is calculated by Abaqus to be 0.0137 inches


and the percent error is less than 1 percent.

Using an element size of 0.1 and thus one solid hex element through the

thickness, the Abaqus model is shown in Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16: Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using one solid hex element
through the thickness.

66
The resulting tip deflection is calculated by Abaqus to be 1.24842 inches.

The approximate percent error from the analytical solution is a staggering


8950 percent.

Using an element size of 0.05 and thus two solid hex elements through the
thickness, the Abaqus mesh end view is shown in Figure 3.17.

Figure 3.17: Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using two solid hex elements
through the thickness.

The resulting tip deflection is calculated by Abaqus to be 0.018148 inches.


The approximate percent error from the analytical solution is 32 percent. Note
the drastic drop in percent error with doubling the number of elements.

Using an element size of 0.033 and thus three solid hex elements through

the thickness, the Abaqus mesh end view is shown in Figure 3.18.

Figure 3.18: Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using three solid hex elements
through the thickness.

67
The resulting tip deflection is calculated by Abaqus to be 0.01535 inches.

The approximate percent error from the analytical solution is 12 percent.


Using an element size of 0.025 and thus four solid hex elements through

the thickness, the Abaqus mesh end view is shown in Figure 3.19.

Figure 3.19: Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using four solid hex elements
through the thickness.

The resulting tip deflection is calculated by Abaqus to be 0.01456 inches.


The approximate percent error from the analytical solution is 6 percent. Less
than 10 percent error is assumed to be acceptable thus four elements per
thickness is satisfactory for accurate modeling with solid hex elements.

68
Chapter 4

Abaqus Straight Tube Healthy


Abdominal Aorta Model

4.1 Introduction

Before an abdominal aortic aneurysm can be modeled, a healthy abdomi-


nal aorta model should be first considered. This model will be a straight tube

approximation of a healthy abdominal aorta. The stress distribution in an


abdominal aortic aneurysm can then be compared with the stress distribution

in a healthy abdominal aorta. As with any finite element model, there are
a variety of items of concern such as geometric properties, material proper-

ties, boundary conditions, loading conditions, convergence criteria and mesh

quality. Each of these will be described in the following Sections.

4.2 Geometry

A human healthy aorta is modeled as a straight tube with a constant inner

diameter of 25.4 mm, a constant wall thickness of 2 mm and an arbitrary

length of 100 mm. Refer to Figure 4.1 for the Abaqus model of the geometry.

69
Figure 4.1: Geometry for a straight tube approximation of a healthy abdominal
aorta modeled in Abaqus.

4.3 Material

4.3.1 Experimental Data

Before any material can be chosen, experimental data must be found for a
healthy human abdominal aorta. Experimental data were used from Vande

Geest et al. (2006). In brief, they obtained 26 abdominal aortic aneurysm


samples and 8 age-matched healthy abdominal aortic samples and performed
biaxial testing. The stress versus strain graphs developed in this study con-
sisted of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S and the Green strain tensor

E. The Green strain tensor was calculated using

1
E = (FT F − 1), (4.1)
2

70
where for each set of samples, longitudinal strips and circumferential strips,

the components of the Green strain tensor become

1 2
ELL = (λ − 1),
2 L
1
Eθθ = (λ2θ − 1). (4.2)
2

The second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor was calculated using

S = F−1 P, (4.3)

where P is the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor. This was calculated again
for each set of samples as components

fL
PLL = ,
HBLL
fC
Pθθ = , (4.4)
HBCC

where fL and fC are the applied forces, H is the specimen thickness and BLL

and BCC are the specimen dimensions in the longitudinal and circumferential

directions. All three of these geometric values were measured in the reference,
unloaded, configuration.

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 were developed using Digitize It, a program which

allows you to digitize data points off of a graphic image. It should also be

noted that only data for the equi-biaxial testing case was used for verification

of material parameters for simplicity.

71
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain
120
Test Data, Longitudinal Samples

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress SLL (kPa)


100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 4.2: Representative experimental data for longitudinal strips of a


healthy human abdominal aorta in equi-biaxial tension, (Digitized from Vande
Geest et al. (2006)).

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain


120
Test Data, Circumferential Samples
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress Sθθ (kPa)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 4.3: Representative experimental data for circumferential strips of a


healthy human abdominal aorta in equi-biaxial tension, (Digitized from Vande
Geest et al. (2006)).

72
4.3.2 Neo-Hookean Material

First the classic elastic, nonlinear, and isotropic neo-Hookean material model
was considered. Since isotropy is employed in this research, an ideal fit to the

two sets of data would be in the middle of the longitudinal and circumferential

data points. The strain energy function for neo-Hookean has been previously
described and can be seen again below as

1
W = C10 (I1 − 3) + (J − 1)2 . (4.5)
D1

The values for the two material parameters, C10 and D1, that best fit the data
are 100 kPa and 0.0001, respectively.

There are two calculations that are being compared to the test data. The

first is a hand calculation of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress assuming an


incompressible material. The equations used for this calculation are below.

Note that the equi-biaxial tension is assumed to be in the 1- and 2-directions.

λ1 λ2 λ3 = 1,

λ1 = λ2 = λ,

⇒ λ3 = λ−2 . (4.6)

The matrix representation of the deformation gradient then becomes

 
λ 0 0
 
 
 
 
 
F = 0 λ 0 

. (4.7)
 
 
 
 
−2
0 0 λ

73
Recall equation (2.85)

∂W
σij = Fjα − pδij . (4.8)
∂Fiα

In the case of the neo-Hookean material,

∂W
= C10 . (4.9)
∂I1

Substituting equations (4.7) and (4.9) into equation (4.8) yields

σij = 2C10 Fiα Fjα − pδij = 2C10 bij − pδij , (4.10)

where we used ∂I1 /∂Fiα = 2Fiα . Using the definition for b, b = FFT ,

σ11 = 2C10 λ2 − p = σ22 ,

σ33 = 2C10 λ−4 − p. (4.11)

The applied boundary condition that σ33 = 0 allows the solution for an
expression for p
p = 2C10 λ−4 . (4.12)

Using the definitions for σ and S in Section 2.5,

S = F−1 P = F−1 JσF−T , (4.13)

or in component form with J = 1

1 1
S11 = S22 = σ11 . (4.14)
λ λ

74
Substituting equations (4.11) and (4.12) into equation (4.14) yields

2C10 (λ−2 − λ−4 )


S11 = S22 = . (4.15)
λ2

The second calculation of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress uses a one ele-

ment Abaqus model with an almost incompressible material. Refer to Figure


4.4 for the model.

Figure 4.4: Single element Abaqus model with equi-biaxial loading.

The constrained displacement directions for each of the labeled nodes in

Figure 4.4 are

A - y,z
B-z
C - x,y,z
D - x,z
E-y
F - no displacement constraints
G - x,y
H - x.

75
The calculation of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress uses Abaqus output,

equations (4.3) and (4.4) and the best-fit material parameters. The graph of
the neo-Hookean material approximations are shown in Figure 4.5.

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain


120
Test Data, SLL
Test Data, Sθθ
100 Hand Calc, S
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress S (kPa)

Abaqus UMAT, S

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 4.5: Representative experimental data and the approximated data for
a healthy abdominal aorta using a neo-Hookean strain energy function.

Two conclusions can be drawn from Figure 4.5. The first is that the neo-
Hookean material model is not appropriate to approximate healthy human
abdominal aorta tissue samples. The second conclusion is that using D1 =

0.0001 in the slightly compressible Abaqus material model is an accurate ap-

proximation to modeling an incompressible material.

4.3.3 Gent Material

The next material model applied was the Gent material which was devel-
oped in Gent (1996). The Gent strain-energy function is

µ ¶
µ I1 − 3
W = − Jm ln 1 − , (4.16)
2 Jm

76
where µ is the shear modulus of the material and Jm is a dimensionless constant

representing the limiting chain extensibility at the molecular level. ∂W/∂I1


can be calculated as
∂W Jm µ
= . (4.17)
∂I1 2(Jm − I1 + 3)

The Cauchy stress becomes

· ¸
Jm µ
σij = bij − pδij . (4.18)
(Jm − I1 + 3)

Using the deformation gradient from equation (4.7), the components of

Cauchy stress become

Jm µ
σ11 = λ2 − p = σ22 ,
Jm − I1 + 3
Jm µ
σ33 = λ−4 − p. (4.19)
Jm − I1 + 3

Applying the boundary condition that σ33 = 0 allows the solution for an

expression for p
Jm µ
p= λ−4 . (4.20)
Jm − I1 + 3

Using the definition for S for this loading condition, S = σ/λ2 , an expres-
sion for S11 = S22 becomes

Jm µ (λ2 − λ−4 )
S11 = S22 = , (4.21)
Jm − I1 + 3 λ2

where I1 = 2(λ2 ) + λ−4 .

The same model depicted in Figure 4.4 is used in this Abaqus analysis.

Since the Gent material model is not built into Abaqus, a custom UMAT was
used which was based off of the neo-Hookean UMAT. The calculation of the

second Piola-Kirchhoff stress from Abaqus output again uses equations (4.3)

77
and (4.4) and the best-fit material properties, Jm = 0.11 and µ = 20 kPa.

Note that the Abaqus calculation could also be performed by using the output
for σ11 , or σ22 and dividing by λ2 . Both methods yield the same results.

The modified section of the UMAT for the Gent material model is shown
in Figure 4.6. The graph of the Gent material approximations are shown in

Figure 4.7.

78
Figure 4.6: Modified section of the UMAT for the Gent material model.

79
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain
120
Test Data, SLL
Test Data, Sθθ
100

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress S (kPa)


Hand Calc, S
Abaqus UMAT, S

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 4.7: Representative experimental data and the approximated data for
a healthy abdominal aorta using a Gent strain energy function.

The Gent model is a much more accurate material model for the fit to test

data than the neo-Hookean material. However after some further research, a
numerical instability was found in the Gent model. The data that the Gent
model was fitted to reached a max stretch of about 1.1. However, the Gent
model after that stretch yields very abnormal results. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show

how the Gent model behaves in uniaxial and biaxial loading conditions for a
stretch greater than 1.1.

80
Nominal Stress vs. Stretch
350
Hand Calc
300 Abaqus Calc

250

200
Nominal Stress P (kPa)
150

100

50

−50

−100

−150

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5


Stretch λ

Figure 4.8: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a uniaxial
loading condition using the Gent strain energy function.

Nominal Stress vs. Stretch

Hand Calc
Abaqus Calc
100

0
Nominal Stress P (kPa)

−100

−200

−300

−400
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3
Stretch λ

Figure 4.9: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta for equi-biaxial
loading condition using the Gent strain energy function.

As is depicted in the graphs, the numerical instability results in a negative

stress for a positive stretch. The numerical instability is when the denom-

81
inator of ∂W/∂I1 goes to zero. To investigate even further, another model

is constructed in Abaqus where two sides are in tension while a pressure is


applied to the third side of a one element cube. This model is a more accurate

approximation of what is occurring in a human artery with internal pressure.


Figure 4.10 shows the Gent material model for the triaxial loading condition

where the arrows in the x- and y-directions represent the stretches while the
arrows in the z-direction represent the applied pressure.

Figure 4.10: Abaqus model for the triaxial loading condition.

82
Nominal Stress vs. Stretch
35 Pxx, P=0kPa
P , P=0kPa
30 zz
Pxx, P=.16kPa
25 Pzz, P=.16kPa

20 Pxx, P=1.6kPa
Nominal Stress P (kPa) P , P=1.6kPa
zz
15
P , P=8kPa
xx
10 Pzz, P=8kPa
Pxx, P=16kPa
5
Pzz, P=16kPa
0

−5

−10

−15
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
Stretch λ

Figure 4.11: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a triaxial
loading condition using a Gent strain energy function.

The data curves to the left of λ = 1 are the stresses in the z-direction
while the data curves to the right of λ = 1 are the stresses in the x-direction.

The results reported in the x-direction are in the direction of extension. The
results reported in the z-direction are in the direction of the applied pressure

which results in compression. For the different pressure loadings, the stretch
in the x- and y-directions are kept constant at a value of λ = 1.095. As the

pressure on the third side of the cube increases, the stress in the direction

of positive stretch approaches zero and for an internal pressure of 16 kPa,

the stress becomes negative. It seems that the stretches in the x- and y-
directions are reached and the high pressure applied on the third side wants to

stretch out those surfaces even more. Since those surfaces are prohibited from
stretching past a λ = 1.095 due to the numerical instability, they experience

a compressive stress as the remainder of the pressure is applied during the


loading step.

83
4.3.4 Healthy Abdominal Aorta Material

The next material model considered is from Rodrı́guez et al. (2008). The
isotropic strain energy developed in this paper is shown below as

C1 h C2 (I1 −3) i
W = e2 −1 , (4.22)
C2

where ∂W/∂I1 can be calculated as

∂W C1 h C2 (I1 −3) i
= e2 . (4.23)
∂I1 2

The Cauchy stress becomes

C2
(I1 −3)
σij = [C1 e 2 ]bij − pδij . (4.24)

Using the deformation gradient from equation (4.7), the components of


Cauchy stress become

C2
(I1 −3)
σ11 = C1 [e 2 ]λ2 − p = σ22 ,
C2
(I1 −3)
σ33 = C1 [e 2 ]λ−4 − p. (4.25)

Applying the boundary condition that σ33 = 0 allows the solution for an

expression for p
C2
(I1 −3)
p = C1 [e 2 ]λ−4 . (4.26)

Using the definition for S for this loading condition, S = σ/λ2 , an expres-

sion for S11 = S22 becomes

C2
(I1 −3) [λ2 − λ−4 ]
S11 = S22 = C1 [e 2 ] , (4.27)
λ2

84
where I1 = 2(λ2 ) + λ−4 .

The same model depicted in Figure 4.4 is used again in this Abaqus anal-
ysis. The calculation of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress from Abaqus results

again uses equations (4.3) and (4.4) and the best-fit material properties, C1 =
2.5 kPa and C2 = 83. The modified UMAT for the material model in equation

(4.20) can be seen in Figure 4.12. The graph of this material approximation
is shown in Figure 4.13.

85
Figure 4.12: Modified section of the UMAT for the material model using
equation (4.20).

86
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain
120
Test Data, SLL
Test Data, Sθθ
100 Hand Calc, S

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress S (kPa)


Abaqus UMAT, S

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 4.13: Representative experimental data and the approximated data


for a healthy abdominal aorta using the strain energy function from equation
(4.20).

This model is a very accurate material model for the fit to the given ex-
perimental data. Before applying this material to the straight tube healthy

abdominal aorta model and the abdominal aortic aneurysm model, a few other

one element cases were analyzed to check for instabilities. Since the strain en-
ergy function from equation (4.20) is based on an exponential, it was expected
that there would not be any numerical instabilities and this is demonstrated

in Figure 4.14.

87
Nominal Stress vs. Stretch
1000
Hand Calc
900 Abaqus UMAT
Abaqus UMAT Quasi−Newton
800

700
Nominal Stress P (kPa)
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stretch λ

Figure 4.14: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a uniaxial
loading condition using the strain energy function from equation (4.20).

Notice that the standard analysis technique of the full Newton method
does not complete analysis completely. It approaches a stretch of about 1.2

then it stops. The reason for this is that the standard full Newton method
has a convergence criteria which looks at the result from the previous step

time increment and compares that result to the present result. If there is a
large difference between the two results then Abaqus thinks that the solution

is diverging and stops analysis. For biological tissue that stiffen up rapidly,

the stress is expected to change greatly for increasing stretch so another anal-
ysis technique is necessary. The secondary built-in analysis technique called

Quasi-Newton method does not include that extra convergence criteria which
looks at the result from the previous step time increment. Thus this graph

demonstrates the success of the Quasi-Newton method and it will be used from

now on in this research. Also, this graph shows that no matter how much you

stretch the material, the stress keeps exponentially increasing. There is no

88
numerical instability which is further demonstrated in Figures 4.15 and 4.16.

Nominal Stress vs. Stretch


1000
Hand Calc
900 Abaqus Calc

800

700
Nominal Stress P (kPa)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stretch λ

Figure 4.15: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a biaxial
loading condition using the strain energy function from equation (4.20).

Nominal Stress vs. Stretch


35
Pxx, P=0kPa
30 Pzz, P=0kPa
Pxx, P=.16kPa
25
Pzz, P=.16kPa
Nominal Stress P (kPa)

20 Pxx, P=1.6kPa
Pzz, P=1.6kPa
15 P , P=8kPa
xx
Pzz, P=8kPa
10
P , P=16kPa
xx
Pzz, P=16kPa
5

−5
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Stretch λ

Figure 4.16: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a triaxial
loading condition using the strain energy function from equation (4.20).

89
The data curves to the left of λ = 1 are the stresses in z-direction while

the data curves to the right of λ = 1 are there stresses in the x-direction.
The results reported in the x-direction are in the direction of extension. The

results reported in the z-direction are in the direction of the applied pressure
which results in compression. For the different pressure loadings, the maximum

stretch in the x- and y-directions are kept constant at a value of λ = 1.1. As


the pressure on the third side of the cube increases, the stress in the direction

of positive stretch does not become negative as was the case with the Gent
model. Again this demonstrates the numerical stability associated with this

material model.

4.4 Boundary and Loading Conditions

Now that the material model has been successfully determined, the straight

tube healthy abdominal aorta model can be fully developed. There are two

main loading conditions to be applied to this model. First, a displacement of


10 mm is applied to one end of the tube to simulate an axial pre-stretch of
λz = 1.1. Second a pressure equal to the human systolic blood pressure 16
kPa will be uniformly applied to the inside surface of the tube. The analysis is

performed using an initial step and two main analysis steps. The initial step

contains initial boundary conditions, analysis step 1 contains the displacement


boundary condition and analysis step 2 contains the pressure loading. All of

these boundary and loading conditions are described below and refer to Figures

4.17 through 4.20. Boundary conditions 1-3 are created in the initial step and
propagated through the rest of the two analysis steps. Boundary condition 4 is

created in step 1 and propagated through the last analysis step. The internal

pressure is applied in the last analysis step and can be seen in Figure 4.21:

90
Figure 4.17: BC-1 : Displacement in the x-direction = 0 at the top and bottom
lines.

Figure 4.18: BC-2 : Displacement in the y-direction = 0 at the left and right
lines.

91
Figure 4.19: BC-3: Displacement in the z-direction = 0 at one end.

Figure 4.20: BC-4: Displacement in the z-direction = 10 mm at other end.

92
Figure 4.21: Internal pressure, 16 kPa, loading condition.

4.5 Convergence

To achieve convergence, several items were optimized in the analysis step


options. Step 1 consists of applying an end displacement and the convergence
criteria can be seen below.

Step Time = 1
Geometric nonlinearities considered
Automatic time incrementation selected
Initial time increment = 0.1
Minimum time increment = 0.00001
Maximum time increment = 0.1
Maximum number of time increments = 1000
Quasi-Newton solution technique used.

Step 2 consists of applying an internal pressure and the convergence criteria


can be seen below.

Step Time = 1
93
Geometric nonlinearities considered
Automatic time incrementation selected
Initial time increment = 0.01
Minimum time increment = 0.00001
Maximum time increment = 0.1
Maximum number of time increments = 1000
Quasi-Newton solution technique used.

Another important component to the successful convergence of the model

is the mesh. In the healthy abdominal aorta model, 8-noded hex elements,

C3D8, are used. The resulting mesh can be seen in Figure 4.22. Note that

there are four elements through the thickness as suggested in Section 3.3. The
total number of elements in the mesh is 20000.

Figure 4.22: Undeformed mesh for a straight tube healthy abdominal aorta
model.

94
4.6 Stress Distribution for Uniform Constant

Pressure

The resulting Von Mises and max principal stress distributions are reported
in kPa and can be seen in Figures 4.23 and 4.24. The maximum principal

stresses and stretches are located in the circumferential direction.

Figure 4.23: Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for a straight tube healthy
abdominal aorta model for uniform, constant systolic pressure loading.

95
Figure 4.24: Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for a straight tube healthy
abdominal aorta model for uniform, constant systolic pressure loading.

4.7 Significance of Results

Since an isotropic material model was used, it makes sense that the stress
along the length of the cylinder is constant. The stress is also constant in

the circumferential direction. It is an axisymmetric model. Since the pressure

is directly applied to the internal surface of the cylinder, it also is reasonable


that the maximum values for stress are at that internal surface. The maximum
values for maximum principal stress, 207.9 kPa, is the same order of magnitude

of stresses reported in the control aortas in Raghavan et al. (2000) and Vorp

(2007). It should be noted that the strain energy function in Vorp (2007)

seemed to be insufficient to accurately capture the stiffness in the experimental

data. A quick calculation was performed for equi-biaxial loading using that
strain energy function and although it captured some stiffness, it did not fully

capture the stiffness seen in the data from Rodrı́guez et al. (2008). Although

direct comparison of the resulting stress distributions is difficult due to the

difference in patient geometry, the maximum Von Mises stress reported in

96
Vorp (2007) was approximately 42 percent lower than the maximum value

reported in the current research. The deformed model can be seen in the
Figure 4.25 while the deformed mesh can be seen in Figure 4.26. Stress versus

strain curves are also developed for one internal element and are shown in
Figure 4.27. Principal stresses, in the current configuration, versus pressure

for one internal element can be seen in Figure 4.28.

Figure 4.25: Undeformed and deformed model. The undeformed model is in


light gray while the deformed model is in dark gray.

97
Figure 4.26: Deformed mesh for the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta
model.

Principal Stresses vs. Principal Stretches

200
Max Principal Stress
180 Mid Principal Stress
Min Principal Stress
160 Step Step 2
1
140
Principal Stress (kPa)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
Principal Stretch λ

Figure 4.27: Principal stresses versus stretch data for step 1 and step 2 for
one internal element of the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model. The
maximum principal stress is in the axial direction during step 1 and in the
circumferential direction in step 2.

98
Principal Stresses vs. Pressure

200
Max Principal Stress
Mid Principal Stress
Min Principal Stress
150

Principal Stresses (kPa) 100

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pressure (kPa)

Figure 4.28: Principal stresses versus pressure for one internal element of the
straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model under constant systolic pressure
loading.

Note that in Figure 4.27, the labels of max, mid, and min are defined
considering the results of entire analysis, not each step individually. In Figure
4.28, the minimum principal stress is in the radial direction while the maximum

principal stress is in the circumferential direction.

4.8 Stress Distribution for Uniform Variable

Pressure

The next model was analyzed with a varying internal pressure which ap-

proximates a realistic blood pressure. An example of a realistic normal blood


pressure can be seen in Figure 4.29. The supplied approximate blood pressure

uses a sine wave as shown in Figure 4.30. The variable pressure model is based

off the constant systolic pressure model. The changes made were having step

2 be a pressure ramped linearly to 12.5 kPa and creating a third step which

99
contains the variable pressure with a periodic amplitude. The convergence

criteria for step 2 of this model is the same as step 2 of the constant systolic
pressure model. The convergence criteria for step 3 is the same as step 2

except for an increase in the total step time from 1 to 1.5 to include a full
cycle of loading for the given frequency. A stress versus step time curve for

one internal element is shown in Figure 4.31. Note that the data displayed in
Figure 4.31 is from one element only, not the maximum stressed element in

the model.

Figure 4.29: Typical blood pressure diagram where systolic pres-


sure is the peak pressure (120 mmHg) while diastolic pressure is
the minimum pressure (70 mmHg), (www.williams.edu/Biology/Faculty/
Staff/sswoap/site/picture.html).

Figure 4.30: Approximated blood pressure where systolic pressure is 16 kPa


(120 mmHg) and diastolic pressure is 9 kPa (70 mmHg).

100
Stress vs. Step Time

180

160

140 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3


Max Principal Stress (kPa)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Step Time (s)

Figure 4.31: Max principal stress versus step time for one element of the
straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model.

4.9 Significance of Results

In steps 1 and 2, since the loading is ramped linearly, it makes sense that
the graph of stress versus step time is linear. For step 3 where the amplitude

of the applied pressure is no longer ramped linearly but applied periodically

as seen in Figure 4.31, it is a good check that the resulting stress vs step time
is periodic. Another verification of the healthy human abdominal aorta model

besides the maximum stresses is the deformation. For a human abdominal


aorta, a typical change in inner diameter from systolic pressure to diastolic

pressure is about 10 percent. For this model, the change in diameter was

about 17 percent which is reasonable. Note that there is no degradation after


each cycle because this is still an elastic analysis. Also, the periodic amplitude

101
loading yields a maximum value for maximum principal stress of 207.9 kPa

which is equal to the maximum value for maximum principal stress under
the constant systolic pressure loading as it should be. Principal stresses versus

pressure can be seen in Figures 3.33 while principal stresses versus time can be
seen in Figure 3.34. Note that both Figure 4.32 and Figure 4.33 display data

for the third step only and for one element only, not the maximum stressed
element.

Principal Stresses vs. Pressure

180

160

140
Principal Stresses (kPa)

120

Max Principal Stress


100
Mid Principal Stress
80 Min Principal Stress

60

40

20

0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Pressure (kPa)

Figure 4.32: Principal stresses versus pressure for one element of the straight
tube healthy abdominal aorta model under periodic amplitude pressure load-
ing. This graph is for the third step only and uses the loading seen in Figure
4.30.

102
Principal Stresses vs. Step Time

180

160

140

Principal Stresses (kPa)


120

100

80 Max Principal Stress


Mid Principal Stress
60
Min Principal Stress
40

20

−20
0 0.5 1 1.5
Step Time (s)

Figure 4.33: Principal stresses versus step time for one element of the straight
tube healthy abdominal aorta model under periodic amplitude pressure load-
ing. This graph is for the third step only and uses the loading seen in Figure
4.30.

Note that Figures 4.32 and 4.33 do not start at the same stress. This is
because Figure 4.33 is stress versus step time while Figure 4.32 is stress versus
pressure. The pressure in Figure 4.32 is displayed from lowest to highest,

not in order of how they are applied during the time step. For example, the
pressure at the beginning of the third time step is 12.5 kPa, not 9 kPa.

103
Chapter 5

Abaqus Abdominal Aortic


Aneurysm Model

5.1 Introduction

Now that a straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model has been an-
alyzed for two appropriate loading conditions, a patient-specific abdominal

aortic aneurysm model is analyzed. Items of concern for this model are the
geometric properties, material properties, boundary conditions, loading condi-

tions, convergence criteria and mesh quality. These topics are discussed in the
following Sections while the three loading conditions are discussed specifically

in Sections 5.4, 5.8 and 5.10.

5.2 Geometry

The abdominal aortic aneurysm geometry is based upon a supplied patient-


specific model of the lumen created from a process called segmenting. In

segmenting, several images of cross sections of the aneurysm geometry are

merged together to form a three dimensional solid model of the lumen. This

104
original model can be seen in Figure 5.1 and was supplied by Edgar (2008).

Figure 5.1: Original three dimensional solid model of the lumen of a patient-
specific abdominal aortic aneurysm. Front view (left) and side view (right),
(Edgar 2008).

One major challenge when creating the geometry to be imported into and
analyzed by Abaqus is the creation of the arterial wall. Since the model is

of the lumen, an arterial wall needs to be built off of the solid. After trying

several different approaches in various programs such as Viz 2007, Inventor

11, and AutoCAD 2007, the successful approach uses AutoCAD 2007 and

is divided into three parts. First, several cross-sections using the original
model were made in with the help of the AutoCAD utility 3dclip. Also note

that only the aneurysm itself was modeled with elongated portions of healthy
aorta geometry on either end for avoiding stress concentrations from boundary

conditions. Second the loft procedure was used to join together the cross-

105
sections. Lastly, the shell feature was applied with a negative shell thickness

as to outwardly create the wall. Additionally, note that the wall was split
into four equal parts each with a thickness of 0.5 mm to add up to a 2 mm

total constant wall thickness. This was done to facilitate the interest of having
four solid elements through the thickness for the mesh. The approximation

of a constant wall thickness was made due to the lack of information about
the varying wall thickness of the patient model and the lack of the ability to

create a varying thickness using the shell feature in AutoCAD. The resulting
geometry can be seen in Figure 5.2 and, when considering the geometry of

just the aneurysm itself, this is a good physical approximation to the supplied

patient geometry.

Figure 5.2: Three dimensional solid model of the arterial wall of a patient-
specific abdominal aortic aneurysm. Front view (left) and side view (right).

106
5.3 Material

5.3.1 Experimental Data

The experimental data used to determine material parameters is from the


same paper as the healthy abdominal aorta data. Again the stress versus

strain graphs consisted of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S and the

Green strain tensor E. Refer to equations (4.1) through (4.4) for calculations
of these tensors. The experimental data can be seen in Figures 5.3 and 5.4.

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain


120
Test Data, Longitudinal Samples
(kPa)

100
LL
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress S

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 5.3: Representative experimental data for longitudinal strips of a hu-


man abdominal aortic aneurysm in equi-biaxial tension,(Digitized from Vande
Geest et al. (2006)).

107
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain
120
Test Data, Circumferential Samples

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress Sθθ (kPa)


100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 5.4: Representative experimental data for circumferential strips of a


human abdominal aortic aneurysm in equi-biaxial tension, (Digitized from
Vande Geest et al. (2006)).

When comparing these graphs with the healthy abdominal aorta graphs, it
is clear that the aneurismal tissue stiffens up at a much smaller strain. Also,

the difference between abdominal aortic aneurysm longitudinal and circum-


ferential representative data due to anisotropy is more evident than in the

representative data for the healthy aorta. The degeneration of the aorta due
to the aneurysm seems to lead to an increase in mechanical anisotropy with

the circumferential direction being the preferred direction for stiffening.

5.3.2 Aneurysm Material

The strain energy function from equation (4.20) will again be used just as

with the healthy abdominal aorta except with different material parameters.

Refer to equations (4.1) through (4.3) for calculations of the Green strain ten-

108
sor and the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor. The same model depicted

in Figure 4.4 is used again in the current Abaqus analysis. The best-fit ma-
terial properties are C1 = 1.04 kPa and C2 = 280.4. The modified UMAT

for this material model is the same as in Figure 3.14 except with the new
material parameters. Again since isotropy is considered in this research, and

ideal fit would be data in between the longitudinal and circumferential data.
The graph of this material approximation to the abdominal aortic aneurysm

representative data is shown in Figure 5.5.

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain


120
Test Data, SLL
Test Data, Sθθ
100 Hand Calc, S
Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress S (kPa)

Abaqus UMAT, S

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Green Strain E

Figure 5.5: Representative experimental data and the approximated data for
an abdominal aortic aneurysm using the strain energy function in equation
(4.20) under equi-biaxial tension.

109
The strain energy function along with the best fit material parameters

used are accurate to obtain data in between the two sets of given experimental
data. Also, the Abaqus slightly compressible model matches pretty well to the

incompressible hand calculation.

5.4 Boundary and Loading Conditions

Similar to the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model, a pressure

equal to the human systolic blood pressure of 16 kPa is uniformly applied to

the inside surface of the aneurysm wall. The boundary conditions for this

model are fixed conditions for each end and can be seen in Figure 5.6. The
internal pressure is applied in the first, and only, analysis step and can be seen
in Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.6: BC-1 : Fixed end conditions for the abdominal aortic aneurysm
model in Abaqus.

110
Figure 5.7: Internal pressure loading condition for the abdominal aortic
aneurysm model in Abaqus.

5.5 Convergence

To achieve convergence, several items were optimized in the analysis step


options. Step 1 consists of applying an internal pressure and the convergence

criteria can be seen below.

Step Time = 10
Geometric nonlinearities considered
Automatic time incrementation selected
Initial time increment = 0.00001
Minimum time increment = 0.0000000001
Maximum time increment = 0.1
Maximum number of time increments = 1000
Quasi-Newton solution technique used.

Increasing the total step time is another way to have Abaqus apply a very
small load each time step thus avoiding excessive distortion which hinders

convergence. Since the model is made from four separate imported parts, a tie
constraint was applied to each of the three sets of interacting surfaces. A tie

111
constraint in Abaqus allows the user to specify a master and slave and does not

allow any relative motion between these two entities. Out of the 6 interacting
surfaces, the innermost surface was selected as the master for each of the three

tie constraint definitions. The first tie constraint used the outer surface of the
first part as the master and the inner surface of the second part as the slave.

The second tie constraint used the outer surface of the the second part as
the master and the inner surface of the third part as the slave. The third tie

constraint used the outer surface of the third part as the master and the inner
surface of the fourth part as the slave. Another important component to the

successful convergence of the model is the mesh. In order to successfully create

a valid mesh using 8-noded hex elements, C3D8, for the aneurysm model, the

model had to be partitioned into sections and the medial axis advancing front

meshing algorithm was employed. The three partitions can be seen in Figure
5.8.

Figure 5.8: Partitions for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model.

112
The medial axis algorithm first decomposes the region into a group of

simpler regions then uses structured meshing techniques to fill each simple
region with elements. The total number of hex elements in the mesh is 63654

and the resulting mesh can be seen in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9: Undeformed mesh for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model.

5.6 Stress Distribution for Uniform Constant

Pressure

The resulting Von Mises and max principal stress distributions can be seen

in Figures 5.10 through 5.13. The deformed mesh can be seen in Figure 5.14.
A stress versus strain curve is also developed for one internal element and is

113
shown in Figure 5.15. Note that the data shown in Figure 5.15 is from one

internal element, not the maximum stressed element.

Figure 5.10: Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for whole abdominal aortic
aneurysm model.

Figure 5.11: Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal aortic
aneurysm model. The scale was adjusted to exclude the stress concentrations
at both ends.

114
Figure 5.12: Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for whole abdominal aortic
aneurysm model.

Figure 5.13: Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal
aortic aneurysm model. The scale was adjusted to exclude the stress concen-
trations at both ends.

115
Figure 5.14: Deformed mesh for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model.

Stress vs. Stretch


550
Data is for Step 1: internal pressure
500

450

400
Max Principal Stress (kPa)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18
Max Principal Stretch λ

Figure 5.15: Max principal stress versus stretch data for one element under a
constant systolic pressure for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model.

5.7 Significance of Results

It is a good check that the Von Mises and max principal stress distributions

are of similar magnitude. The maximum values for those two stress results,

116
excluding the end faces, are located at places with large changes in geometry

but primarily on the opposite side of the bulge. When considering overall
equilibrium due to the applied internal pressure, there is more surface area on

the side with the bulge so there is more force on that side. Thus the other
side is being pulled strongly towards the bulge side and creates those areas

of maximum stress. It is hard to make a direct comparison with other previ-


ous literature because different geometry and material models have been used.

However, the current reported maximum principal stress, 654 kPa, is in the
same order of magnitude as reported in Raghavan et al. (2000), Vorp (2007)

and Rodrı́guez et al. (2008). When looking at Figure 5.15 it makes sense

that with relatively small stretch values there are very large stress increases,

especially when comparing against the cylinder model. This quick stiffening

effect was evident in the experimental data so it is a good verification that we


also see it happening here in the pressure model. Furthermore, the maximum
stresses here are almost three times larger than the straight tube healthy ab-
dominal aorta model. A weaker arterial wall material and irregular geometry

greatly influence the stress distributions.

5.8 Stress Distribution for Uniform Variable

Pressure

The next model was analyzed with a varying internal pressure which ap-
proximates a realistic blood pressure. The supplied blood pressure uses a sine

wave, as in the healthy abdominal aorta model, to approximate a realistic

blood pressure. Refer to Figures 4.30 and 4.31 for these pressures.

The variable pressure model convergence settings are based off the constant

systolic pressure model. The changes made were having step 1 be a pressure

117
ramped linearly to 12.5 kPa and creating a step 2 which contains the variable

pressure with a periodic amplitude. The convergence criteria for step 1 of


this model is the same as step 1 of the constant systolic pressure model. The

convergence criteria for step 2 can be seen below.

Step Time = 4
Geometric nonlinearities considered
Automatic time incrementation
Initial time increment = 0.0025
Minimum time increment = 0.0000000001
Maximum time increment = 0.1
Maximum number of time increments = 1000
Quasi-Newton solution technique used.

Stress vs. Step Time


500

450

400
Max Principal Stress (kPa)

350

300

250

200
Step 1 Step 2
150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Step Time (s)

Figure 5.16: Max principal stress versus step time for one element of the
abdominal aortic aneurysm model with variable pressure amplitude loading.

A stress versus step time curve is developed for an internal element and is

shown above in Figure 5.16. Note that the data shown in Figure 5.16 is from
one internal element, not the maximum stressed element.

118
5.9 Significance of Results

In step 1 since the loading is ramped linearly it makes sense that the stress
vs time is linear. For step 2 where the amplitude of the applied pressure is

no longer ramped linearly but is periodic, it is a good check that the resulting
stress vs time for this step is periodic. Note that there is no degradation

after each cycle because this is still an elastic analysis. For this geometry, the
periodic amplitude pressure loading caused a maximum value of maximum

principal stress of 654 kPa which matches the maximum principal stress for
the constant systolic pressure model as it should.

5.10 Stress Distribution for Non-uniform Con-

stant Pressure

Up to now, the applied pressure to the internal wall has been uniform
however this may not be the most realistic loading. Many aneurysm models,

due to their irregular geometry, can induce a non-uniform pressure distribution

even with steady blood flow. Therefore the next addition to the abdominal
aortic aneurysm model is the application of a non-uniform pressure distribution
as a function of position.

Information has been supplied from Edgar (2008) regarding a physical


model of the lumen corresponding to the same patient-specific geometry used

in this research. In brief, eleven pressure taps were installed on this model,
various flows corresponding to Reynold’s numbers of 500 up to 3000 were ap-

plied and the pressure was recorded at each of the eleven locations shown in

Figure 5.17. The eleven vertical taps meet a horizontal tube where the pres-

sure is evaluated at each axial location. A correction was made to each of the

119
eleven readings to account for the height of each of the vertical pressure taps

as discussed in Edgar (2008).

Figure 5.17: Supplied pressure and location data, (Edgar 2008).

Only the flow rate and resistance can be controlled in this experiment fol-
lowing Ohm’s Law: pressure = flow × resistance. Thus the recorded pressure
readings are automatically determined from the specification of the flow and

resistance. To find the pressure drops, the pressure at point 1 is subtracted


from all the pressure readings. Therefore the pressure drop is 0 at point 1
and nonzero at the other locations. Although the pressure readings are not
representative of pressure readings in vivo, the calculated pressure drop data
is. The data used in this research was from steady flow emulating rest-state

aortic conditions in vivo, with Reynold’s number = 500, and a reference pres-
sure of 120 mmHg was added to the pressure drop values along the length

of the model. The result is a non-uniform systolic pressure distribution. It

should be noted that the pressure at each axial location is assumed to be the
same circumferentially. This assumption is not entirely realistic but is made

due to the available experimental data.

Using the aforementioned data and MathCAD, a curve fit was developed.
A custom non-uniform pressure distribution was created in Abaqus using the

120
equation from the curve fit. The data used to develop this curve fit can be

seen in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Axial locations and pressures of the eleven pressure taps, (Edgar
2008).
Pressure Tap No. Location (mm) Pressure (kPa)
1 0 15.96
2 25.52 15.946
3 62.62 15.906
4 98.6 15.848
5 111.36 15.548
6 124.12 15.502
7 135.72 15.504
8 151.96 15.553
9 167.04 15.689
10 186.76 15.880
11 216.92 15.883

The curve fit equation and graph can be seen below.

P (z) = 15.963 + (−6.047E −3 )z + (2.905E −4 )z 2 + (−3.997E −6 )z 3

= +(9.59E −9 )z 4 + (7.457E −11 )z 5 + (−2.774E −13 )z 6 . (5.1)

Even though there are some unrealistic spikes on either side of the bulge of

the aneurysm, the pressure difference is still so small in those areas that those
errors are acceptable. For verification of the method used to create a non-
uniform pressure, a non-uniform pressure was first tested on a simple cylinder

model. It is known that for this simple geometry and a uniform pressure

loading, there is a resulting uniform stress distribution along the length. Thus

it was easy to see if the non-uniform pressure was working properly because
the stress distribution immediately became non-uniform along the length. The

convergence criteria is the same as for the uniform constant systolic pressure
model except that the total step time is set to 25. The stress distributions for

121
Curve Fit for Non−uniform Pressure Data

Test Data
16 Curve Fit

Pressure (kPa) 15.9

15.8

15.7

15.6

15.5

0 50 100 150 200


Axial Location (mm)

Figure 5.18: Curve fit equation with original data points.

the aneurysm model can be seen in Figures 5.19 through 5.22. The deformed
mesh can be seen in Figure 5.23. The undeformed and deformed models can
be seen in Figure 5.24.

Figure 5.19: Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for the whole abdominal
aortic aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading.

122
Figure 5.20: Von Mises stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal aortic
aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading. The scale was adjusted
to exclude the stress concentrations at both ends.

Figure 5.21: Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for the whole abdominal
aortic aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading.

123
Figure 5.22: Max principal stress distribution (kPa) for half the abdominal
aortic aneurysm model with non-uniform pressure loading. The scale was
adjusted to exclude the stress concentrations at both ends.

Figure 5.23: Deformed mesh for half the abdominal aortic aneurysm model
with non-uniform pressure loading.

124
Figure 5.24: Skewed views of the undeformed (left) and deformed (right) ab-
dominal aortic aneurysm models with non-uniform pressure loading. The de-
formed model uses a scale factor of 2.

5.11 Significance of Results

The maximum value for principal stress excluding the stress concentrations
at each end is 650 kPa. The percent difference in the maximum value of

principal stress between the uniform and non-uniform models is approximately


0.85 percent. Although there is not a drastic difference in resulting stress

distributions between the uniform and non-uniform pressure models for this
case, it is still important to realize that a non-uniform pressure distribution
exists in aneurysms and depending on the patient’s geometry, the pressure
drops and resulting stress effects can be significant.

125
Chapter 6

Conclusions

6.1 Conclusions

Much recent research in the biomechanical engineering field has been de-
voted to the development of tools to evaluate the rupture risk of abdominal

aortic aneurysms. Such factors as gender, age, family history, aneurysm size,
aneurysm diameter, smoking status and thrombus thickness has been used

to predict the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. However an accu-


rate and reliable stress analysis of an aneurysm requires not only a precise
three-dimensional solid model but also an appropriate material model.

Although several assumptions are made during this research, the results are

still very significant. It is important that not only did this project use patient-
specific geometry, but also material parameters based on reliable experimental

data. The possible effects of the assumptions made in the current research

are discussed here. The approximation of having an isotropic material might


result in an under-estimation of stresses according to the study in Rodrı́guez

et al. (2008). Their study compared results using an isotropic material model

versus an anisotropic material model and found that the isotropic material

126
model under-estimated the magnitude of the stresses. Also, the approximation

of not including a circumferential residual stress in the straight tube healthy


abdominal aorta model will possibly result in an over-estimation of stresses

according to the study in Holzapfel et al. (2000). Their study compared results
using a model which did not account for circumferential residual stresses with

the results from a model that did account for circumferential residual stresses.
They found that an inclusion of circumferential residual stresses lowers the

overall magnitudes of the stresses in the artery. It is hard to make a direct


comparison to these previous studies as the authors used different material

models and different geometries, but an overall trend in their results is likely

for other materials and geometry.

Even with the aforementioned assumptions, the resulting stress distribu-

tions in the healthy and diseased abdominal aortas are still very reasonable
when compared with other previous literature. A comparison of the stress
distribution from the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta model with the
abdominal aortic aneurysm model shows the clear, dramatic increase in stress

as expected. The weakened material along with the irregular geometry ac-
counts for this higher magnitude stress distribution. It is important to include
as much geometric irregularity as it exists in the patient model as the stress

concentrations are highly dependent on geometry.

The inclusion of a non-uniform pressure distribution is a great addition

to this field of research. To the author’s knowledge, this has never before

been included in modeling an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Even though the


aneurysm model analyzed in this research only had an overall pressure differ-

ence of about 3.5 mmHg, other abdominal aortic aneurysm geometries have
been known to have a much greater pressure difference. It is important to

realize the implications of using the assumption of a uniform internal pressure

127
since it may not always be a very realistic assumption. In this patient-specific

aneurysm model with an applied non-uniform pressure loading, the location of


maximum stress may be a good indication of where the wall could rupture. As

previously mentioned, if a failure stress of an abdominal aortic aneurysm was


known, a comparison could be made between the reported maximum stress

and this failure stress. A speculation could then be made about whether or
not this aneurysm has an immediate risk of rupture.

6.2 Suggestions for Future Work

Although much progress has been made in this research, there are still
several other improvements that can be made to this model and to this field
of research in general. The material used in both the straight tube healthy
abdominal aorta model and the abdominal aortic aneurysm model consider

an isotropic material only. Since no anisotropic model is built into Abaqus,

a user defined anisotropic material model would need to be developed. This


would entail creating a new UMAT which requires good knowledge of Fortran
as debugging a UMAT in Abaqus is not a straightforward task.

Also, a method to include a circumferential stretch into the straight tube


healthy abdominal aorta model in Abaqus would account for the residual stress

in the circumferential direction and yield more realistic results. This would

include modifying the constitutive equations for the inclusion of residual stress.

A circumferential pre-stretch might also lower the overall magnitude of stresses

due to an applied internal pressure loading.

Another improvement would be to devise a technique to create a wall with

varying thickness to include in the abdominal aortic aneurysm model. However

this would first require more research to obtain the data on the wall thicknesses

128
for a given patient geometry. Developing a varying wall thickness in a program

such as AutoCAD would then be vital to creating the model to be imported


into a finite element program. Also, a model with geometry more exact to the

patient geometry would yield more accurate results.


More experiments should also be done to see if the inclusion of thrombus

into the abdominal aortic aneurysm model has an important impact on the
stress distribution for a given loading. The presence of thrombus might further

weaken the arterial wall as studied in Vorp et al. (2001). This would also
present a need for experimental data to determine a valid material model for

thrombus.

Finally, an investigation into the possible residual stresses of an abdominal

aortic aneurysm is also suggested as future work. The residual stresses expe-

rienced by a healthy growing arterial wall cannot be assumed to be analogous


to the residual stresses developed in a growing aneurysm.

129
Bibliography

Balzani D., Neff P., Schröder J., Holzapfel G.A., A polyconvex framework for

soft biological tissues. Adjustment to experimental data. International


Journal of Solids and Structures, 43 (2006) 6052–6070.

de Putter S., Wolters B.J.B.M., Rutten M.C.M., Breeuwer M., Gerritsen


F.A., van de Vosse F.N., Patient-Specific Initial Wall Stress in Abdom-

inal Aortic Aneurysms with a Backward Incremental Method. Journal


of Biomechanics, 40 (2007) 1081–1090.

DiMartino E., Mantero S., Inzoli F., Biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysm

in the prescence of endoluminal thrombus: experimental characterization


and structural static computational analysis. European Journal of Vas-
cular and Endovascular Surgery, 15 (1998) 290–299.

Edgar E., Computational and Experimental Investigation of Steady Flow Fields,


Turbulence and Hemodynamic Wall Stresses in Patient-Specific Abdom-

inal Aortic Aneurysm Models. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University.


(2008).

Elger D.F., Blackketter D.M., Budwig R.S., Johansen K.H., The influence of

shape on the stresses in model abdominal aortic aneurysms. Journal of

Biomechanical Engineering, 118 (1996) 326–332.

Fillinger M.F., Marra S.P., Raghavan M.L., Kennedy F.E., Prediction of

Rupture Risk in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm during Observation: Wall


Stress Versus Diameter. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 37 (2003) 724–732.

Fillinger M.F., Raghavan M.L., Marra, S.P., Cronenwett, J.L., Kennedy F.E.,

In vivo analysis of mechanical wall stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm


rupture risk. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 36 (2002) 589–597.

130
Gent A.N., A new constitutive relation for rubber. Rubber Chemistry and

Technology, 69 (1996) 59–61.

Holzapfel G.A., Determination of material models for arterial walls from uni-
axial extension tests and histological structure. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 238 (2006) 290–302.

Holzapfel G.A., Nonlinear Solid Mechanics: A Continuum Approach for En-

gineering. John Wiley and Sons Ltd: West Sussex, England, (2000).

Holzapfel G.A., Gasser T.C., Computational Stress-Deformation Analysis of

Arterial Walls Including High-Pressure Response. International Journal

of Cardiology, 116 (2007) 78–85.

Holzapfel G.A., Gasser T.C., Ogden R.W., A New Constitutive Framework


for Arterial Wall Mechanics and a Comparative Study of Material Mod-
els. Journal of Elasticity, 61 (2000) 1–48.

Humphrey J.D., Cardiovascular Solid Mechanics: Cells, Tissues, and Organs.


Springer-Verlag: New York, (2002).

Inzoli F., Boschetti R., Zappa M., Longo T., Fumero R., Biomechanical fac-

tors in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. European Journal of Vascu-

lar Surgery, 7 (1993) 667–674.

Lemaitre J., Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. Academic Press, (2001).

Medical Encyclopedia: Abdominal aortic aneurysm. A.D.A.M.: (2006).

<www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/print/ency/article/000162.html >.

Mower W.R., Baraff L.J., Sneyd J., Stress distributions in vascular aneurysms:

factors affecting risk of aneurysm rupture. Journal of Surgical Research,


55 (1993) 543–553.

131
Mower W.R., Quinones W.J., Gambhir S.S., Effect of intraluminal thrombus

on abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress. Journal of Vascular Surgery,


26 (1997) 602–608.

Ogden R.W., Non-linear Elastic Deformations. Dover: New York, (1997).

Peattie R.A., Asbury, C.L., Bluth, E.I., Riehle, T.J., Steady Flow in Mod-

els of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. Part II: Wall Stresses and Their
Implications for In Vivo Thrombus and Rupture. Journal of Ultrasound

Medicine, 15 (1996) 689-696.

Raghavan M.L., Fillinger M.F., Marra S.P., Naegelein B.P., Kennedy F.E.,
Automated Methodology for Determination of Stress Distribution in Hu-
man Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Journal of Biomechanical Engineer-

ing, 127 (2005) 868–871.

Raghavan M.L., Webster M.W., Vorp D.A., Ex-vivo biomechanical behavior


of abdominal aortic aneurysm: assesment using a new mathematical
model. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 24 (1996) 573–582.

Raghavan M.L., Vorp D.A., Toward a biomechanical tool to evaluate rup-


ture potential of abdominal aortic aneurysm: identification of a finite

strain constitutive model and evaluation of its applicability. Journal of

Biomechanics, 33 (2000) 475–482.

Raghavan M.L., Vorp D.A., Federle M.P., Makaroun M.S., Webster M.W.,

Wall Stress Distribution on Three-Dimensionally Reconstructed Models

of Human Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Journal of Vascular Surgery,


31 (2000) 760–769.

Rodrı́guez J.F., Ruiz C., Doblaré M., Holzapfel G.A., Mechanical Stresses in
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Influence of Diameter, Asymmetry and

132
Material Anisotropy. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions

of the ASME, Vol 130, Article Number: 021023 (2008).

Schulze-Bauer C.A.J., Holzapfel G.A., Determination of Constitutive Equa-

tions for Human Arteries from Clinical Data. Journal of Biomechanics,

36 (2003) 165–169.

Schulze-Bauer C.A.J., Morth C., Holzapfel G.A., Passive Biaxial Mechani-

cal Response of Aged Human Iliac Arteries. Journal of Biomechanical


Engineering, 125 (2003) 395–406.

Schulze-Bauer C.A.J., Regitnig P., Holzapfel G.A., Mechanics of the Human

Femoral Adventitia Including High-Pressure Response. American Jour-


nal of Physiology and Heart Circulatory Physiology, 282 (2002) 2427–
2440.

Stringfellow M.M., Lawrence P.F., Stringfellow R.G., The influence of aorta-

aneurysm geometry upon stress in the aneurysm wall. Journal of Surgical


Research, 42 (1987) 425–433.

USC Center for Vascular Care: Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. (2008).USC


Center for Vascular Care <www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/vas/ abdom-

inalaorticaneurysm.html >.

Vaishnav R.N., Vossoughi J., Estimation of residual strains in aortic seg-


ments. Biomedical Engineering II: Recent Developments, Pergamon Press:

New York (1983) 330–330.

Vande Geest J.P., Sacks M.S., Vorp D.A., The Effects of Aneurysm on the

Biaxial Mechanical Behavior of Human Abdominal Aorta. Journal of

Biomechanics, 39 (2006) 1324–1334.

133
Vascular Web: Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Society for Vascular Surgery:

(2006). <www.vascularweb.org/ CONTRIBUTION PAGES/Patient In-


formation/NorthPoint/Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.html >.

Vorp D.A., Biomechanics of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Journal of Biome-


chanics, 40 (2007) 1887–1902.

Vorp D.A., Lee P.C., Wang D.H.J., Makaroun M.S., Nemoto E.M., Ogawa

S., Webster M.W., Association of Intraluminal Thrombus in Abdominal


Aortic Aneurysm with Local Hypoxia and Wall Weakening. Journal of

Vascular Surgery, 34 (2001) 291–299.

Watton P.N., Hill N.A., Heil M., A Mathematical Model for the Growth of the
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Journal of Biomechanics and Modeling in
Mechanobiology, 3 (2004) 98–113.

134