6 views

Uploaded by Arcane_Cowboy

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are de¯ned 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, ¯nite element
model of the diseased vessel wall replicating the shape of a speci¯c 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 °ow 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 °uid °ow 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 di®erence 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 signi¯cant.

- Intravascular Ultrasound for Aorta
- 700001247_Topper_8_110_2_1_Biology_2015_solutions_up201506182058_1434641282_7612
- EMP Marzo 2011 Ultrasonido en SU
- Anatomy - Superior and Mediastinal Structures.pdf
- Workshop 14
- Anatomy I - Questions (3)
- Shock
- Different Types of Blood Vessels Vary Slightly in Their Structures
- Biology Tbw
- Iaslc 8th Posters 24x36 2018 Final Version 1
- Ni Hms 471926
- Medullary Serotonin Neurons and Central CO2 Chemoreception
- Unilateral Variation of Renal Artery-Clinical Correlation –A Case Report
- inhalasiiii
- Life Processes Class 10 Notes Biology Science Chapter 6
- Applications of Optimal Control to Chilled
- Event-related Potential Correlates of Negation in a Sentence–Picture Verification Paradigm
- Near-optimal Control of Cooling Powers
- Impacts of human disturbance on ghost crab burrow morphology and distribution on sandy shores
- Anderson-2016.pdf

You are on page 1of 151

A thesis

submitted by

Christie Wilson

TUFTS UNIVERSITY

August 2008

Thesis Committee:

Professor Luis Dorfmann, Chair

1456625

1456625

2008

Abstract

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

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

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

conditions for the aneurysm is less than one percent, the resulting stress dif-

ference for another patient’s geometry could be very significant.

Acknowledgements

and advice were invaluable in this project:

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

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

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.

iv

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

1 Introduction 1

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

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

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

2 Nonlinear Theory 18

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

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

v

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

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

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

2.4 Stress Tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.5 Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.6 Objectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

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

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

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

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.3 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

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

vi

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

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

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

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

5.5 Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.6 Stress Distribution for Uniform Constant Pressure . . . . . . . 113

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

6 Conclusions 126

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

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

vii

List of Tables

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

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

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

viii

List of Figures

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

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)

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

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

tie 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

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

1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

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

ix

1.8 Typical uniaxial stress versus strain curves for circumferential

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

2.2 Deformation of a volume element from the reference configura-

tion Br to the current configuration Bt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

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

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

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

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

3.16 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using one solid hex element

3.17 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using two solid hex elements

3.18 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using three solid hex elements

3.19 Cantilever beam model in Abaqus using four solid hex elements

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

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

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

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

4.5 Representative experimental data and the approximated data

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

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

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

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

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

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

loading condition using the strain energy function from equation

(4.20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

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

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

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

lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

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

xii

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

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

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

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-

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

4.28 Principal stresses versus pressure for one internal element of the

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

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

xiii

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

4.32 Principal stresses versus pressure for one element of the straight

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

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

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

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

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

for an abdominal aortic aneurysm using the strain energy func-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xv

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

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

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

5.23 Deformed mesh for half the abdominal aortic aneurysm model

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

xvi

Chapter 1

Introduction

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

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

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

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.

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

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

pressure distribution. Therefore the third loading condition is a spatially non-

uniform internal wall pressure based on experimental fluid flow measurements

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.

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

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.

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

3

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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).

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

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

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

5.1.

1996).

8

Figure 1.5: Patient-specific image of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, (Peattie

1996).

1996).

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

rather than the diameter of the aneurysm.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-

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

(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-

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

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

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

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

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

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).

16

independent elastoplastic model for the remaining portions of the curves as

1.5 Organization

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

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

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

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

in the reference and current configurations. In the reference configuration

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

18

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

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

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

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

examples of motion for simple loading conditions are below.

and 3-directions is given by

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

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

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

the partial derivative with respect to the uppercase X.

and thus it undergoes a displacement u.

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

22

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

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 .

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

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

by

(1 + β) 0 0

F=

0 1 0. (2.17)

0 0 1

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

dv = JdV, (2.22)

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

J = det F.

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 .

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

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

written as

(FT da − J dA) · dX = 0. (2.25)

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

da = J F−T dA,

26

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

shape.

Br to the current configuration Bt .

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

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

27

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

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

that characterizes changes in elements during a given motion. These changes

can also be described through strain tensors. As in linear solid mechanics,

The following equations define the most common strain tensors in nonlinear

solid mechanics.

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),

= χ(X) + dεF(X)a0 ,

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

= a0 · FT Fa0 = a0 · Ca0 ,

where C = FT F. (2.36)

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

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)

strain tensor.

1¡ T ¢

E= F F−I , (2.40)

2

strained.

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

µ ¶

∂vi ∂ ∂xi ∂Xα ∂ ẋi ∂Xα −1

Lij = = = = Ḟiα Fαj ,

∂xj ∂t ∂Xα ∂xj ∂Xα ∂xj

L = ḞF−1 . (2.42)

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 .

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

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

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

Z Z Z

ρv̇dv = ρbdv + tda. (2.48)

Bt Bt St

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

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

Z Z Z

x × ρv̇dv = x × ρbdv + x × tda, (2.52)

Bt Bt St

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

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

t = σ T n. (2.53)

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

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.

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-

tda = TdA

σ T nda = TdA

⇒ 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

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

determined.

35

2.5 Energy

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

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

Z Z

P = v · ρbdv + t · vda

ZBt ZSt

= ρv · bdv + σn · vda

ZBt ZSt

= ρv · bdv + σv · nda

ZBt St

Bt

= vj + σij

∂xi ∂xi ∂xi

∂σij

= vj + σij Lji

∂xi

∂σij

= vj + σij (Dji + Wji )

∂xi

∂σij

= vj + σij Dji , (2.58)

∂xi

36

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

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 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)

∂

P = [K + W (F)]. (2.63)

∂t

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

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

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

∂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

∂W

σij = 2J −1 Fiβ Fjα . (2.68)

∂Cβα

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

−1 −1

Sβα = JFβi σij Fαj , (2.71)

39

which in tensor notation has the form

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)

λ3 as

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

expression for ∂W/∂C as

= + + + +

∂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

∂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)

formulations.

2.8 Compressibility

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.

∂W −1

Piα = − pFαi , (2.83)

∂Fiα

43

where we have used

∂J −1 −1

= JFαi = Fαi . (2.84)

∂Fiα

f µ ¶

∂W ∂W −1

σij = Fjα = − pFαi Fjα

∂Fiα ∂Fiα

∂W

= Fjα − pδij . (2.85)

∂Fiα

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

∂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

∂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

∂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

=

∂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

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

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

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

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-

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

Ft = 4F,

u + Lo

λ= ,

Lo

Ft

P= ,

Ao

Ft

σ= = λP. (3.1)

Ac

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

ksi. The resulting maximum principal stress in both meshes for this loading

condition can be seen in Figure 3.13.

63

Stress vs. Stretch

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.

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

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

σ = Eε, (3.27)

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.

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

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.

and the percent error is less than 1 percent.

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

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.

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 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.

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 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

Abdominal Aorta Model

4.1 Introduction

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

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-

4.2 Geometry

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

Before any material can be chosen, experimental data must be found for a

healthy human abdominal aorta. Experimental data were used from Vande

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

1

E = (FT F − 1), (4.1)

2

70

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

1 2

ELL = (λ − 1),

2 L

1

Eθθ = (λ2θ − 1). (4.2)

2

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

71

Second Piola−Kirchhoff Stress vs. Green Strain

120

Test Data, Longitudinal Samples

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Green Strain E

healthy human abdominal aorta in equi-biaxial tension, (Digitized from Vande

Geest et al. (2006)).

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

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

incompressible material. The equations used for this calculation are below.

λ1 λ2 λ3 = 1,

λ1 = λ2 = λ,

⇒ λ3 = λ−2 . (4.6)

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

∂W

= C10 . (4.9)

∂I1

where we used ∂I1 /∂Fiα = 2Fiα . Using the definition for b, b = FFT ,

The applied boundary condition that σ33 = 0 allows the solution for an

expression for p

p = 2C10 λ−4 . (4.12)

1 1

S11 = S22 = σ11 . (4.14)

λ λ

74

Substituting equations (4.11) and (4.12) into equation (4.14) yields

S11 = S22 = . (4.15)

λ2

The second calculation of the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress uses a one ele-

4.4 for the model.

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.

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 =

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

can be calculated as

∂W Jm µ

= . (4.17)

∂I1 2(Jm − I1 + 3)

· ¸

Jm µ

σij = bij − pδij . (4.18)

(Jm − I1 + 3)

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

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

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

Stretch λ

Figure 4.8: Stress response for a healthy abdominal aorta with a uniaxial

loading condition using the Gent strain energy function.

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.

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

applied to the third side of a one element cube. This model is a more accurate

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.

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

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

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

∂W C1 h C2 (I1 −3) i

= e2 . (4.23)

∂I1 2

C2

(I1 −3)

σij = [C1 e 2 ]bij − pδij . (4.24)

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-

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

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

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

88

numerical instability which is further demonstrated in Figures 4.15 and 4.16.

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).

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

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.

Now that the material model has been successfully determined, the straight

tube healthy abdominal aorta model can be fully developed. There are two

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

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.

92

Figure 4.21: Internal pressure, 16 kPa, loading condition.

4.5 Convergence

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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

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

light gray while the deformed model is in dark gray.

97

Figure 4.26: Deformed mesh for the straight tube healthy abdominal aorta

model.

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

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

Pressure

The next model was analyzed with a varying internal pressure which ap-

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.

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).

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

100

Stress vs. Step Time

180

160

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.

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

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

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

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.

180

160

140

Principal Stresses (kPa)

120

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

120

100

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

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

5.2 Geometry

specific model of the lumen created from a process called segmenting. In

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

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

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.

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

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

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Green Strain E

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,

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 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

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

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

options. Step 1 consists of applying an internal pressure and the convergence

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

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.

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

Figure 5.9: Undeformed mesh for the abdominal aortic aneurysm model.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

this model is the same as step 1 of the constant systolic pressure model. The

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15.8

15.7

15.6

15.5

Axial Location (mm)

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.

The maximum value for principal stress excluding the stress concentrations

at each end is 650 kPa. The percent difference in the maximum value of

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

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

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

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

comparison to these previous studies as the authors used different material

models and different geometries, but an overall trend in their results is likely

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

to this field of research. To the author’s knowledge, this has never before

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

127

since it may not always be a very realistic assumption. In this patient-specific

maximum stress may be a good indication of where the wall could rupture. As

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.

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

would entail creating a new UMAT which requires good knowledge of Fortran

as debugging a UMAT in Abaqus is not a straightforward task.

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.

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

into a finite element program. Also, a model with geometry more exact to the

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.

aortic aneurysm is also suggested as future work. The residual stresses expe-

to the residual stresses developed in a growing aneurysm.

129

Bibliography

Balzani D., Neff P., Schröder J., Holzapfel G.A., A polyconvex framework for

Journal of Solids and Structures, 43 (2006) 6052–6070.

F.A., van de Vosse F.N., Patient-Specific Initial Wall Stress in Abdom-

of Biomechanics, 40 (2007) 1081–1090.

DiMartino E., Mantero S., Inzoli F., Biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysm

and structural static computational analysis. European Journal of Vas-

cular and Endovascular Surgery, 15 (1998) 290–299.

Turbulence and Hemodynamic Wall Stresses in Patient-Specific Abdom-

(2008).

Elger D.F., Blackketter D.M., Budwig R.S., Johansen K.H., The influence of

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.,

rupture risk. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 36 (2002) 589–597.

130

Gent A.N., A new constitutive relation for rubber. Rubber Chemistry and

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.

gineering. John Wiley and Sons Ltd: West Sussex, England, (2000).

for Arterial Wall Mechanics and a Comparative Study of Material Mod-

els. Journal of Elasticity, 61 (2000) 1–48.

Springer-Verlag: New York, (2002).

Inzoli F., Boschetti R., Zappa M., Longo T., Fumero R., Biomechanical fac-

<www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/print/ency/article/000162.html >.

Mower W.R., Baraff L.J., Sneyd J., Stress distributions in vascular aneurysms:

55 (1993) 543–553.

131

Mower W.R., Quinones W.J., Gambhir S.S., Effect of intraluminal thrombus

26 (1997) 602–608.

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

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-

of abdominal aortic aneurysm: assesment using a new mathematical

model. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 24 (1996) 573–582.

ture potential of abdominal aortic aneurysm: identification of a finite

Raghavan M.L., Vorp D.A., Federle M.P., Makaroun M.S., Webster M.W.,

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

36 (2003) 165–169.

Engineering, 125 (2003) 395–406.

nal of Physiology and Heart Circulatory Physiology, 282 (2002) 2427–

2440.

Research, 42 (1987) 425–433.

Center for Vascular Care <www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/vas/ abdom-

inalaorticaneurysm.html >.

ments. Biomedical Engineering II: Recent Developments, Pergamon Press:

Vande Geest J.P., Sacks M.S., Vorp D.A., The Effects of Aneurysm on the

133

Vascular Web: Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Society for Vascular Surgery:

formation/NorthPoint/Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.html >.

chanics, 40 (2007) 1887–1902.

Vorp D.A., Lee P.C., Wang D.H.J., Makaroun M.S., Nemoto E.M., Ogawa

Aortic Aneurysm with Local Hypoxia and Wall Weakening. Journal of

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

- Intravascular Ultrasound for AortaUploaded byJacques Kpodonu
- 700001247_Topper_8_110_2_1_Biology_2015_solutions_up201506182058_1434641282_7612Uploaded bysneha
- EMP Marzo 2011 Ultrasonido en SUUploaded byNicolás Herrera
- Anatomy - Superior and Mediastinal Structures.pdfUploaded byAngel Dela Cruz-Kim
- Workshop 14Uploaded byMohammad_Islam87
- Anatomy I - Questions (3)Uploaded bykazchandran
- ShockUploaded bysanjivdas
- Different Types of Blood Vessels Vary Slightly in Their StructuresUploaded byNarindra Persaud
- Biology TbwUploaded byhamza96
- Iaslc 8th Posters 24x36 2018 Final Version 1Uploaded byFaskanita Nadapdap
- Ni Hms 471926Uploaded bydetr
- Medullary Serotonin Neurons and Central CO2 ChemoreceptionUploaded byRehaan Fayaz
- Unilateral Variation of Renal Artery-Clinical Correlation –A Case ReportUploaded byIOSRjournal
- inhalasiiiiUploaded byArini Pramodavardhani Puteri
- Life Processes Class 10 Notes Biology Science Chapter 6Uploaded bygooode

- Applications of Optimal Control to ChilledUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Event-related Potential Correlates of Negation in a Sentence–Picture Verification ParadigmUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Near-optimal Control of Cooling PowersUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Impacts of human disturbance on ghost crab burrow morphology and distribution on sandy shoresUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Anderson-2016.pdfUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- TheIncrementalProject.docxUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- NazrulIslam.pdfUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Florida International University: Development and Accreditation of Miami’s Public College of MedicineUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- The Socio-political Situation of Avicenna’s Time and His Spiritual Messages: On the Occasion of 1031st Birth Anniversary of Avicenna (23 August 980)Uploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- A Review of Palliative and Hospice Care in the Context of Islam: Dying with Faith and FamilyUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- The Guild Command AbilityUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- obrien2009.pdfUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Celermajer2007.pdfUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- India-Japan Relations and Asia's Emerging GeopoliticsUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- ISO_6133_2015_Rubber and Plastics Analysis of Multi-peak Traces Obtained...Uploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Tombstone (Alpha Version)Uploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Importing Dogs and Cats From Other Countries Into Colorado - 07.18.18 (1)Uploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- kaust_faculty_employment_package_fact_sheet__1203928933245.docUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Kennel Calculator PrintUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Multi-Fiber-Reinforced Composites for the Coronoradicular Reconstruction of Premolar Teeth: A Finite Element Analysis.Uploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Carnevale TT CombatUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- The role of sphingosine kinase isoforms and receptors S1P1, S1P2, S1P3, and S1P5 in primary, secondary, and recurrent glioblastomasUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Modern AGE RPG QuickstartUploaded byCarl Dettlinger
- Deathwatch - The Nemesis Incident.pdfUploaded byJonathan Segura
- 3D bioprintingscaffoldusingalginate/polyvinylalcoholbioinksUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Enhancing Social Science Research in the UAE: An Open Source Software Solution University of Sharjah (UOS) Case StudyUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Curating Research Data Vol 2Uploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in plastic products, indoor dust, sediment and fish from informal e-waste recycling sites in Vietnam: a comprehensive assessment of contamination, accumulation pattern, emissions, and human exposureUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Antebellum Transportation IndicesUploaded byArcane_Cowboy
- Characterisation and risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils and plants around e-waste dismantling sites in southern ChinaUploaded byArcane_Cowboy

- Microsoft Word - BanduraUploaded bySharon Siluvaithas
- Elite English SchoolUploaded byLyla Multazam
- Enforcing the New Orientation in a.docxUploaded bypstuh
- bpmn_2_0_tutorial.pdfUploaded byEmma Delli Fraine
- CONTAINERISATION, UNITISATION AND INTERMODALISMUploaded byDeepesh Shenoy
- Game Scripting 101Uploaded bysnoopyflyingace6695
- Dasara ElephantsUploaded byManjesh Kumar
- Devops a Software Architect s Perspective Len Bass(Www.ebook Dl.com)Uploaded bySanToe Aung
- 9fms_pp10Uploaded byDheeraj
- kimmie updatedresume 170213Uploaded byapi-357528450
- Tổng hợp ebook cho dân cơ khíUploaded byAn An
- Rman_tutorial JAI MAA DURGAUploaded bypapusaha
- Sunflower MechanismUploaded byMalidu Madawala
- chap2Uploaded bynandhakumarme
- Murray v. Louisiana, 163 U.S. 101 (1896)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Gables EngineeringUploaded byShamsuddin Hasnani
- Performance Comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC EncodersUploaded bybmn9999
- Diffusion of Innovation.pptUploaded byPremkishanJShetty
- Raytheon- Jose RodriguezUploaded byJrod
- Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus BoschUploaded byMindSpaceApocalypse
- Addin ZoteroUploaded byMauricio Troche
- 1-s2.0-0378517386902498-mainUploaded byGloria Taylor
- Gittoes, Derek - OTM Release 6.3 OverviewUploaded bySirish Behera
- In Solidarity With Library Genesis and Sci-hub LibgenUploaded bycasimiroamado
- Feeding TechniquesUploaded byAnkita Singh
- Electricity Prices in IndiaUploaded bySumit Kumar Datta
- Surgical Treatments for Otitis Media With Effusion a Systemic ReviewUploaded byranirahmani
- Underground transmissionUploaded byAnkit baghel
- Final EditingUploaded byapi-3832358
- jim waters- english 102- annotated bibUploaded byapi-357401332