Mechanical characterization of liver capsule through uniaxial quasi-static tensile tests until failure

Development of Liver Injury Simulation Model Using MPS Method

“…The pressure of the liver parenchyma particles is set at 0 instead of determination of the free surface in fluid analysis by MPS method. Considering the compressibility, the compression ratio α is introduced to the Using this program we conducted axial loading simulation for liver with simple geometry and evaluate the nominal stressstrain relationship and Poisson's ratio in comparison with experimental data from literature [2] and [3].…”

Sample, testing and analysis variables affecting liver mechanical properties: A review

“…The average elastic modulus for human liver was found to be 0.27 MPa, while that of pig liver was 4 MPa. Brunon et al performed uniaxial tension tests on porcine and human liver samples consisting of parenchyma and capsule at a displacement velocity of 0.5 mm/s (strain rates ranged from of 0.001 to 0.01 s À1 ) [19]. Each sample was covered with markers to calculate the failure strain.…”

“…Sample type Donor sex and age Mechanical properties of human liver Glisson's capsule do not change significantly with donor sex and age [73] Harvesting site Liver samples including the Glisson's capsule are stiffer than those collected from internal sections [18,75] Animal source Complex shear modulus of bovine liver is significantly lower than that of porcine liver [18] Human liver is softer than pig liver and can withstand less ultimate load and strain [19,30] Fibrosis grade Liver elastic modulus and shear viscosity increase non-linearly with fibrosis grade [26,30,77] Sample status In-vivo/ex-vivo tests with/without perfusion Unperfused liver is stiffer and more viscous than in-vivo [28] Compliance and damping coefficients are similar between ex-vivo perfused and in-vivo conditions Temperature No significant differences in failure strain or stress [78] Freezing…”

A Bayesian approach to selecting hyperelastic constitutive models of soft tissue

“…These models are generally phenomenological in nature and are derived from a strain energy density function that is postulated to depend on invariants of the deformation field in the elastic body. The model parameters are usually determined by a least squares fit of the constitutive model to mechanical testing data from experiments such as compression, tension [1,2,3], indentation [4,5], aspiration [6,7], etc.…”