PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 15, 2026Physical Mesomechanics0 citations

Evaluating Hyperelastic and Alternative Deformation Models for Accurate Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of Biological Tissues

View Full Paper
СМС. А. МусловALA. I. LotkovPSP. Sukhochev

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess the effectiveness of various hyperelastic models for modeling the mechanical properties of biological tissues.
  • Analyzed primary analytical formulations of hyperelastic models (neo-Hookean, Mooney–Rivlin, etc.)
  • Provided stress-strain and elastic modulus-strain curves for duodenal tissue
  • Compared predictive capabilities of hyperelastic models with linear, bilinear, trilinear, and exponential models
  • Identified that traditional hyperelastic models may not capture tissue behavior accurately in all scenarios.
  • Demonstrated that alternative deformation models can provide better predictions in some contexts.
  • Provided comprehensive data on the stress-strain and elastic modulus for biological tissues, facilitating informed model selection.

Abstract

Abstract Although hyperelastic models have been studied for almost 80 years, selecting one that accurately describes the mechanical response of materials remains a challenge. The most prominent examples of hyperelastic materials are biological tissues of living organisms. Information on models of hyperelastic biological materials is highly fragmented, typically focusing on specific individual models or particular organ tissues, and is published across various sources, with some applied aspects being insufficiently covered. This paper presents and analyzes the primary analytical formulations of the most common hyperelastic models (neo-Hookean, Mooney–Rivlin, Ogden, Polynomial, Yeoh, Veronda–Westmann) for calculating and analyzing the deformational behavior of materials. Consolidating essential information about these models in a single publication facilitates an informed choice of a model for computations and analysis of the deformation behavior of a hyperelastic material. Stress–strain curves, elastic modulus–strain curves, and statistical modeling parameters constructed based on the examined applied relationships are provided for the duodenum—the initial section of the human small intestine. Finally, formal approximating models: linear, bilinear, trilinear and exponential models of biological tissues are discussed as alternatives to hyperelastic models. The predictive capabilities of these standard analytical models are compared with those of their hyperelastic counterparts.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Муслов et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2f9718a1cfeec490828307https://doi.org/10.1134/s102995992560051x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A general theory of uniqueness and stability in elastic-plastic solids1958 · 1,530 citations
  2. 2A Definition of Stable Inelastic Material1959 · 571 citations
  3. 3Bidirectional hyperelastic characterization of brain white matter tissue2022 · 5 citations
  4. 4Mechanical characterization of skin—Finite deformations1970 · 552 citations
  5. 5Some Forms of the Strain Energy Function for Rubber1993 · 1,613 citations