Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:45:58.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Poroelastic-Viscoelastic Limit for Modeling Brain Biomechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2015

Md. Mehedi Hasan  and
Corina S. Drapaca
Md. Mehedi Hasan
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, The Pennsylvania State University, UP, PA 16802, USA
Corina S. Drapaca
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, The Pennsylvania State University, UP, PA 16802, USA
Get access

Abstract

The brain, a mixture of neural and glia cells, vasculature, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), is one of the most complex organs in the human body. To understand brain responses to traumatic injuries and diseases of the central nervous system it is necessary to develop accurate mathematical models and corresponding computer simulations which can predict brain biomechanics and help design better diagnostic and therapeutic protocols. So far brain tissue has been modeled as either a poroelastic mixture saturated by CSF or as a (visco)-elastic solid. However, it is not obvious which model is more appropriate when investigating brain mechanics under certain physiological and pathological conditions. In this paper we study brain’s mechanics by using a Kelvin-Voight (KV) model for a one-phase viscoelastic solid and a Kelvin-Voight-Maxwell-Biot (KVMB) model for a two-phase (solid and fluid) mixture, and explore the limit between these two models. To account for brain’s evolving microstructure, we replace in the equations of motion the classic integer order time derivatives by Caputo fractional order derivatives and thus introduce corresponding fractional KV and KVMB models. As in soil mechanics we use the displacements of the solid phase in the classic (fractional) KVMB model and respectively of the classic (fractional) KV model to define a poroelastic-viscoelastic limit. Our results show that when the CSF and brain tissue in the classic (fractional) KVMB model have similar speeds, then the model is indistinguishable from its equivalent classic (fractional) KV model.

Keywords

porosityviscoelasticitybiological
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1753: Symposium NN – Mathematical and Computational Aspects of Materials Science , 2015 , mrsf14-1753-nn06-05
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Monson, K.L., Goldsmith, W., Barbaro, N.M., Manley, G.T. (2003). Axial Mechanical Properties of Fresh Human Cerebral Blood Vessels. J Biomech Eng. 125(2), 288–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, Y.B., Franze, K., Seifert, G., Steinhauser, C., Kirchhoff, F., Wolburg, H., Guck, J., Janmey, P., Wei, E.Q., Kas, J., Reichenbach, A. (2006). Viscoelastic Properties of Individual Glial Cells and Neurons in the CNS. PNAS, 103(47), 17759–17764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, A., Sapru, H.N., Essential Neuroscience. Revised First Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006.Google Scholar
Hakim, S., Venegas, J., Burton, J. (1976). The Physics of the Cranial Cavity, Hydrocephalus and Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Mechanical Interpretation and Mathematical Model. Surg Neurol. 5, 187–210.Google ScholarPubMed
Drapaca, C.S., Tenti, G., Rohlf, K., Sivaloganathan, S. (2006). A Quasilinear Viscoelastic Constitutive Equation for the Brain: Application to Hydrocephalus. J Elast., 85(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, K.P., Drapaca, C.S., Sivaloganathan, S. (2011). A Nonlinear Viscoelastic Fractional Derivative Model of Infant Hydrocephalus. Appl Math Comput. 217, 8693–8704.Google Scholar
Tenti, G., Sivaloganathan, S., Drake, J. (1999). Brain Biomechanics: Steady-State Consolidation Theory of Hydrocephalus, Can Appl Math Quart. 7(1), 111–124.Google Scholar
Wirth, B., Sobey, I. (2006). An Axisymmetric and Fully 3D Poroelastic Model for the Evolution of Hydrocephalus. Math Med Biol., 23(4), 363–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michaels, P. (2006). Relating Damping to Soil Permeability. Int J Geomech., 6(3), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonilla, B., Rivero, M., Trujillo, J.J. (2007). On Systems of Linear Fractional Differential Equations with Constant Coefficients. Appl Math Comp. 187, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, S.A., Rose, G.H., Glaser, K.J., Manduca, A., Felmlee, J.P., Jack, C.R. Jr., Ehman, R.L. (2008). Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Brain, NeuroImage, 39(1), 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrabětová, S., Nicholson, C. (2007). Biophysical Properties of Brain Extracellular Space Explored with Ion-Selective Microelectrodes, Integrative Optical Imaging and Related Techniques. Electrochemical Methods for Neuroscience edited by Michael, AC and Borland, LM. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 167–204.Google ScholarPubMed
Inglese, M., Bomsztyk, E., Gonen, O., Mannon, L.J., Grossman, R.I., Rusinek, H. (2005). Dilated Perivascular Spaces: Hallmarks of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Am J Neuroradiol, 26, 719–724.Google ScholarPubMed
Robinson, P.J., Rapoport, S.I. (1987). Size Selectivity of Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability of Various Times after Osmotic Opening. Am J Physiol. 253(3 Pt 2), R459–R466.Google ScholarPubMed