Comparisons of planar and tubular biaxial tensile testing protocols of the same porcine coronary arteries.

Abstract

To identify the orthotropic biomechanical behavior of arteries, researchers typically perform stretch-pressure-inflation tests on tube-form arteries or planar biaxial testing of splayed sections. We examined variations in finite element simulations (FESs) driven from planar or tubular testing of the same coronary arteries to determine what differences exist when picking one testing technique vs. another. Arteries were tested in tube-form first, then tested in planar-form, and fit to a Fung-type strain energy density function. Afterwards, arteries were modeled via finite element analysis looking at stress and displacement behavior in different scenarios (e.g., tube FESs with tube- or planar-driven constitutive models). When performing FESs of tube inflation from a planar-driven constitutive model, pressure-diameter results had an error of 12.3% compared to pressure-inflation data. Circumferential stresses were different between tube- and planar-driven pressure-inflation models by 50.4% with the planar-driven model having higher stresses. This reduced to 3.9% when rolling the sample to a tube first with planar-driven properties, then inflating with tubular-driven properties. Microstructure showed primarily axial orientation in the tubular and opening-angle configurations. There was a shift towards the circumferential direction upon flattening of 8.0°. There was also noticeable collagen uncrimping in the flattened tissue.