1: \section{Comparison of shape, kinematic and stationary energy assumptions;
2: validation}
3: \label{sect2c}
4: We now turn to a comparative study of the
5: force--displacement response of the circular arc and sinusoidal elasticas,
6: with the additional goal of gaining insight to matches between the
7: models and experimental data.
8:
9: \subsection{The force-displacement response of
10: circular-arc and sinusoidal elasticas subjected to different
11: kinematic assumptions}
12: \label{sect2c.1}
13: %------------- Figure -----
14: \begin{figure}[thb]
15: %
16: \psfrag{0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
17: \psfrag{1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1$}
18: \psfrag{2l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $2$}
19: \psfrag{3l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $3$}
20: \psfrag{4l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $4$}
21: \psfrag{5l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $5$}
22: \psfrag{6l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $6$}
23: \psfrag{7l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $7$}
24: \psfrag{8l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $8$}
25: \psfrag{9l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $9$}
26: \psfrag{10l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $10$}
27: \psfrag{pi/2l} [r][r]{\tiny $\pi/2$}
28: %
29: \psfrag{0} [c][c]{\footnotesize $0$}
30: \psfrag{pi/2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\frac{\pi}{2}$}
31: \psfrag{pi} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\pi$}
32: %
33: \psfrag{lmax} [c][c]{\footnotesize
34: $\bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}=\theta_{0}/\sin\theta_{0}$}
35: \psfrag{theta0}[c][c]{\footnotesize $\theta_0$}
36: %
37: %
38: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
39: \psfrag{ 10l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $10$}
40: \psfrag{ 20l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $20$}
41: \psfrag{ 30l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $30$}
42: \psfrag{ 40l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $40$}
43: \psfrag{ 50l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $50$}
44: %
45: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
46: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
47: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
48: \psfrag{ 2.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2.5$}
49: \psfrag{ pi/2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\frac{\pi}{2}$}
50: %
51: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
52: \psfrag{lmac} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
53: %
54: \psfrag{B1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=1$}
55: \psfrag{R1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=1$}
56: %
57: \psfrag{the030} [l][l]{\footnotesize
58: $\theta_0{=}\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{6}$}
59: \psfrag{the060} [l][l]{\footnotesize
60: $\theta_0{=}\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{3}$}
61: \psfrag{the090} [l][l]{\footnotesize
62: $\theta_0{=}\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}$}
63: \psfrag{the0120}[r][r]{\footnotesize
64: $\theta_0{=}\displaystyle\frac{2\pi}{3}$}
65: %
66: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
67: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
68: %
69: \centering
70: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig0.eps}
71: \caption{Circular-arc, inextensible elastica. $a$) Variation of the maximum
72: macro-stretch $\bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}=\theta_{0}/\sin\theta_{0}$ with
73: the initial angle $\theta_{0}$. $b$) Shift of the maximum value of
74: the attainable
75: macro-stretch $\bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}$ for selected values of the
76: initial angle
77: $\theta_{0}=\frac{\pi}{6},\frac{\pi}{3},\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{2\pi}{3}$,
78: and for $B = 1$, $R = 1$.
79: }
80: \label{fig0}
81: \end{figure}
82: %------------- Figure -----
83:
84: We first consider the force--stretch behavior of the circular-arc elastica
85: subject to the two additional kinematic assumptions and the stationary
86: strain energy assumption. To this end, we first relate the micro--tip
87: displacement, $g$, and the
88: macro--stretch, $\bar\lambda$. The displacement between the ends of the
89: elastica is assumed to be dictated by macroscopic deformation in an
90: affine manner. That is, the macro--stretch $\bar\lambda$ is related to
91: the tip displacement $g$ by $\bar\lambda:= 1+ g/(2
92: R\sin\theta_{0})$ (see Figure \ref{figeg1}).
93: \footnote{For tissues with transverse isotropy, where the collagen fibrils
94: (elasticas) are characterized by end-to-end vectors that are highly
95: aligned, affinity of deformation is a good assumption. The
96: alternative, fibril slippage, will be treated in a separate paper.}
97: In the studies to follow, the macro stretch will be used as the
98: primary deformation variable controlling the force.
99:
100: %------------- Figure -----
101: \begin{figure}[ht]
102: %
103: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
104: \psfrag{ 20l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $20$}
105: \psfrag{ 40l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $40$}
106: \psfrag{ 60l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $60$}
107: \psfrag{ 80l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $80$}
108: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
109: %
110: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
111: \psfrag{ 1.1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
112: \psfrag{ 1.2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
113: \psfrag{ 1.3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.3$}
114: \psfrag{ 1.4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.4$}
115: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
116: \psfrag{ 1.6} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.6$}
117: %
118: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
119: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
120: %
121: \psfrag{R0.4} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=0.4$}
122: \psfrag{R0.6} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=0.6$}
123: \psfrag{R0.8} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=0.8$}
124: \psfrag{R1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=1$}
125: %
126: \psfrag{B1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=1$}
127: \psfrag{B4} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=4$}
128: \psfrag{B7} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=7$}
129: \psfrag{B10} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=10$}
130: %
131: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
132: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
133: %
134: \centering
135: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig1.eps}
136: \caption{Circular-arc. inextensible elastica. Sensitivity analysis of the
137: $f-\bar\lambda$ curve to $a$) the variation of initial radius
138: $R\in[0.4,1]$ and $b$) the variation of bending stiffness
139: $B\in[1,10]$ for $\theta_{0}=\pi/2$.
140: }
141: \label{fig1}
142: \end{figure}
143: %------------- Figure -----
144:
145: For the circular-arc, inextensible elastica, according to
146: (\ref{elasticaforce1}), the tip force $f$ diverges
147: as the tip displacement $g$ approaches the value
148: $g_\mathrm{max}=2R(\theta_{0}-\sin\theta_{0})$. This implies that the
149: maximum value of macro-stretch is
150: $\bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}=\theta_{0}/\sin\theta_{0}\;,$ as shown also in
151: Figures \ref{fig0}a and \ref{fig0}b. The geometric parameter
152: $\theta_{0}$ thus has an unambiguous physical effect. The ordinates of
153: Figure \ref{fig0}a can be obtained as the locking stretch for each value of
154: $\theta_{0}$ as shown more transparently in Figure \ref{fig0}b for the
155: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ response parametrized by $\theta_0$. For the circular-arc,
156: inextensible elastica, the shape of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve
157: depends only on the initial radius $R$ and the bending stiffness
158: $B$. Figures \ref{fig1}a and \ref{fig1}b demonstrate that the
159: larger the initial radius $R$ or the smaller the bending stiffness
160: $B$, the sharper is the transition to divergence in $f$. Although
161: the sharpness of the transition can be tuned, the value of the
162: locking stretch remains
163: $\bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}=\theta_0/\sin\theta_{0}$, and the
164: response beyond the heel region is asymptotic to a vertical line at
165: $\bar{\lambda}_\mathrm{heel}$. Of course, this divergent
166: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ response is non-physical, and considerably limits
167: the ability to match experiments on different collagenous materials possessing
168: distinct, and non-divergent, responses in the post-heel region.
169:
170:
171: %------------- Figure -----
172: \begin{figure}[ht]
173: %
174: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
175: \psfrag{ 20l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $20$}
176: \psfrag{ 40l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $40$}
177: \psfrag{ 60l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $60$}
178: \psfrag{ 80l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $80$}
179: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
180: %
181: \psfrag{ 1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1$}
182: \psfrag{ 1.1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
183: \psfrag{ 1.2l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
184: %
185: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
186: \psfrag{ 1.1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
187: \psfrag{ 1.2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
188: \psfrag{ 1.3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.3$}
189: \psfrag{ 1.4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.4$}
190: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
191: \psfrag{ 1.6} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.6$}
192: \psfrag{ 1.8} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.8$}
193: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
194: \psfrag{ 3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $3$}
195: \psfrag{ 4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $4$}
196: \psfrag{ 5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $5$}
197: %
198: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
199: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
200: \psfrag{lam} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\lambda=r\theta/(R\theta_{0})$ }
201: %
202: \psfrag{EA1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=1$}
203: \psfrag{EA34} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=34$}
204: \psfrag{EA67} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=67$}
205: \psfrag{EA100} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=100$}
206: %
207: \psfrag{B1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=1$}
208: \psfrag{R1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=1$}
209: \psfrag{the0} [l][l]{\scriptsize $\theta_{0}=\pi/3$}
210: %
211: \psfrag{the030} [r][r]{\footnotesize $\theta_0{=}\frac{\pi}{6}$}
212: \psfrag{the060} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\theta_0{=}\frac{\pi}{3}$}
213: \psfrag{the077} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\theta_{0_\mathrm{cr}}{\approx}1.342$}
214: %\psfrag{app} [l][l]{\tiny $\approx77^{\circ}$}
215: \psfrag{app} [l][l]{\tiny }
216: \psfrag{the090} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\theta_0{=}\frac{\pi}{2}$}
217:
218: %
219: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
220: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
221: %
222: \centering
223: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig2.eps}
224: \caption{Circular-arc elastica surrounded by a planar incompressible
225: medium. $a$) Dependence of the micro--stretch $\lambda$
226: on the macro--stretch $\bar\lambda$ and the initial angle $\theta_{0}$.
227: $b$) Sensitivity analysis of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve to
228: the variation of the axial stiffness $EA\in[1,100]\;.$
229: curve.
230: }
231: \label{fig2}
232: \end{figure}
233: %------------- Figure -----
234:
235: The variation of the micro-stretch, $\lambda$, with macro-stretch,
236: $\bar\lambda$, for a
237: circular-arc elastica embedded in a planar incompressible medium is
238: depicted in Figure \ref{fig2}a. We
239: draw attention to the compression of the
240: elastica for a regime of
241: deformation characterized by small values of $\bar{\lambda}$, and
242: discussed in Remark 4. Following the approach outlined there we have
243: solved for $\theta_0 = \theta_{0_\mathrm{cr}}$ such that for all $\theta_0 <
244: \theta_{0_\mathrm{cr}}$ we have
245: $\mathrm{d}\lambda/\mathrm{d}\bar{\lambda} > 0$.
246: Explicitly we have
247: $\lambda=\theta(\bar\lambda)r(\bar\lambda)/(R\theta_0)$ with
248: $r(\bar\lambda)=R(1-\cos(\theta_{0}))/(2\bar\lambda) +
249: \bar\lambda^{3}R\sin^{2}(\theta_{0})/(2(1-\cos(\theta_{0}))$ and
250: $\theta(\bar\lambda)=\sin^{-1}(\bar\lambda
251: R\sin\theta_{0}/r(\bar\lambda))$ . Setting the derivative
252: $\mathrm{d}\lambda/\mathrm{d}\bar\lambda|_{\bar\lambda=1}=0$ and
253: solving the resulting equation for $\theta_{0}$, we obtained the maximum: $\theta_{0}\le \theta_{0_\mathrm{cr}} \approx 1.342$. As
254: clearly shown in Figure
255: \ref{fig2}a, for the values of the initial angle
256: $\theta_{0}\le \theta_{0_\mathrm{cr}}$ the compressive regime of
257: micro-stretch is avoided. For this reason our subsequent
258: investigations are restricted to
259: $\theta_{0}\le \theta_{0_\mathrm{cr}}$ for the circular-arc elastica
260: embedded in a planar incompressible medium.
261:
262: The sensitivity of the tip force, $f$, to the axial stiffness,
263: $EA$, for $B = 1$, $R = 1$ and $\theta_{0}=\pi/3$ is depicted in
264: Figure \ref{fig2}b for the circular-arc elastica surrounded by a planar
265: incompressible medium. A decrease in the axial
266: stiffness translates, as expected, to a decrease of the slope. Clearly, the axial
267: stiffness dominates the slope of the $f{-}\bar{\lambda}$ curve.
268: In contrast to the inextensible case we observe neither a long
269: toe region nor a distinguishable heel region. Larger values of
270: $\bar\lambda$ are attainable. As the axial
271: stiffness is increased, however, the $f{-}\bar{\lambda}$ curve enters
272: the high (but still increasing) slope regime about $\bar{\lambda}_\mathrm{heel}
273: =\theta_0/\sin\theta_{0}$ without exhibiting much of a toe region. This, of
274: course, limits the use of this model.
275:
276: %------------- Figure -----
277: \begin{figure}[ht]
278: %
279: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
280: \psfrag{ 20l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $20$}
281: \psfrag{ 40l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $40$}
282: \psfrag{ 60l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $60$}
283: \psfrag{ 80l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $80$}
284: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
285: %
286: \psfrag{ 1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1$}
287: \psfrag{ 1.1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
288: \psfrag{ 1.2l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
289: %
290: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
291: \psfrag{ 1.1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
292: \psfrag{ 1.2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
293: \psfrag{ 1.3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.3$}
294: \psfrag{ 1.4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.4$}
295: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
296: \psfrag{ 1.6} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.6$}
297: \psfrag{ 1.8} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.8$}
298: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
299: \psfrag{ 3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $3$}
300: \psfrag{ 4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $4$}
301: \psfrag{ 5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $5$}
302: %
303: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
304: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
305: \psfrag{lam} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\lambda=2r\theta/(\pi R)$ }
306: %
307: \psfrag{EA1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=1$}
308: \psfrag{EA34} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=34$}
309: \psfrag{EA67} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=67$}
310: \psfrag{EA100} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=100$}
311: %
312: \psfrag{B1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=1$}
313: \psfrag{R1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R=1$}
314: \psfrag{the0} [l][l]{\scriptsize $\theta_{0}=\frac{\pi}{2}$}
315: %
316: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
317: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
318: %
319: \centering
320: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig3.eps}
321: \caption{Circular-arc elastica with stationary energy. Sensitivity analysis
322: of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve to the variation of the axial stiffness
323: $EA\in[1,100]\;.$
324: }
325: \label{fig3}
326: \end{figure}
327: %------------- Figure -----
328:
329: The material parameters used for the circular-arc elastica
330: with stationarity of strain energy were the same as for the planar
331: incompressible medium case. As in the planar incompressible case a decrease in
332: axial stiffness has a strong, depressing influence on slope of the
333: $f{-}\bar{\lambda}$ response. The elastica can be extended to
334: $\bar{\lambda}>\theta_{0}/\sin\theta_{0}\;.$
335: With an increase in axial stiffness, the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve approaches
336: the behavior of the inextensible circular-arc elastica (see Figure
337: \ref{fig3}). The circular-arc elastica attaining a
338: stationary strain energy possesses a number of favorable properties:
339: The toe region exists and its slope can be tuned
340: by the bending stiffness. The location of the heel region is uniquely
341: determined by the initial angle $\theta_{0}$ as $\bar{\lambda}_\mathrm{heel}
342: =\theta_0/\sin\theta_{0}$. The slope of the
343: post-heel region can be adjusted by the axial stiffness $EA$ as shown in
344: Figure \ref{fig3}. The stationary strain energy assumption with clearly
345: identifiable parameters thus serves as a promising model to match with
346: experimental data.
347:
348:
349: In Figure \ref{fig4} we compare all three cases of the circular-arc
350: elastica. Distinct values $EA=34,67,100$ are assigned to the axial
351: modulus of the planar incompressible and stationary energy elasticas. The
352: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve of the stationary energy case approaches the
353: inextensible one by ``rotating'' about the heel just below
354: $\bar{\lambda}_\mathrm{heel}$. However, this occurs with no discernible
355: difference in the curves for $\lambda$ values smaller than the
356: heel. In case of the elastica surrounded by a planar incompressible medium,
357: however, the stiffening in the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ behavior is
358: different. Owing to larger values of micro--stretch in the initial
359: stages, the location of the heel shifts to smaller values of
360: $\bar{\lambda}$.
361:
362: %------------- Figure -----
363: \begin{figure}[ht]
364: %
365: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
366: \psfrag{ 20l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $20$}
367: \psfrag{ 40l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $40$}
368: \psfrag{ 60l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $60$}
369: \psfrag{ 80l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $80$}
370: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
371: %
372: \psfrag{ 1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1$}
373: \psfrag{ 1.1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
374: \psfrag{ 1.2l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
375: %
376: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
377: \psfrag{ 1.1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
378: \psfrag{ 1.2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
379: \psfrag{ 1.3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.3$}
380: \psfrag{ 1.4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.4$}
381: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
382: \psfrag{ 1.6} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.6$}
383: \psfrag{ 1.8} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.8$}
384: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
385: \psfrag{ 3} [c][c]{\footnotesize $3$}
386: \psfrag{ 4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $4$}
387: \psfrag{ 5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $5$}
388: %
389: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
390: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
391: \psfrag{lam} [c][c]{\footnotesize $\lambda=2r\theta/(\pi R)$ }
392: %
393: \psfrag{EA} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA{=}34,67,100$}
394: %
395: \psfrag{ie} [r][r]{\tiny Inext.}
396: \psfrag{me} [r][r]{\tiny Stat. Energy }
397: \psfrag{ic} [r][r]{\tiny Incomp.}
398: %
399: \psfrag{B1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B{=}1$}
400: \psfrag{R1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $R{=}1,\:\theta_{0}{=}\pi/3$}
401: %
402: \centering
403: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig4.eps}
404: \caption{Comparison of circular-arc elasticas subjected to different
405: constraints. In the planar incompressible and stationary strain energy cases,
406: three different values are assigned to the axial stiffness
407: $EA=34,67,100$, corresponding to increasingly stiff
408: $f{-}\bar{\lambda}$ response.
409: }
410: \label{fig4}
411: \end{figure}
412: %------------- Figure -----
413: \noindent
414: In the foregoing parameter study, we solely considered circular-arc
415: elasticas with two kinematic assumptions and the stationary strain
416: energy assumption. In what
417: follows, we present an analogous parameter sensitivity study for
418: the sinusoidal geometry. In contrast to the circular-arc elastica, the
419: reference shape of a sinusoidal elastica is governed by two
420: parameters: the amplitude $a_0$ and the half--wave
421: length $l_0$ (see Figure \ref{sin1}). The ratio $a_0/l_0$, however, cannot be
422: arbitrarily chosen. According to the results reported by
423: \citet{Daleetal:72}, this ratio is limited to
424: values smaller than $0.1$. Accounting for this fact in
425: the studies to follow the ratio has been chosen as
426: $a_0/l_0< 0.2\;,$ which will allow us to consider values slightly
427: larger than the experimental observations. The macro--stretch, $\bar\lambda$,
428: remains the primary deformation measure, and is now related
429: to the tip displacement, $g$, by $\bar\lambda = 1+ g/l_0$.
430:
431:
432: First, we consider a sinusoidal elastica with the additional
433: global inextensibility assumption given in
434: (\ref{gloinextensibility}). In Figure \ref{fig5}a the influence of the
435: ratio $a_0/l_0 \in [0.05,0.2]$ on the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve is
436: depicted while keeping the material parameters fixed at $B=1$ and $EA=1$. This
437: ratio proves crucial in determining the value of
438: stretch at which the heel occurs. The higher the ratio $a_0/l_0$, the
439: longer the toe region preceding the heel. In other words, this
440: parameter determines the value of $\bar{\lambda}$ where the influence
441: of the bending mechanism starts to
442: diminish and the axial extension begins to govern the
443: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve. In
444: order to demonstrate the sensitivity of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curve to the
445: bending stiffness, the ratio of bending stiffness to axial stiffness,
446: $B/EA$, is varied from $1$ to $4$ (Figure \ref{fig5}b). An increase
447: in the ratio $B/EA$ scales the curve's ordinates ($f$-values), and
448: therefore the
449: transition in the heel region becomes more gradual. However, the value
450: of the locking stretch is not influenced by the changes in the ratio $B/EA$.
451: %------------- Figure -----
452: \begin{figure}[ht]
453: %
454: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
455: \psfrag{ 20l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $20$}
456: \psfrag{ 40l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $40$}
457: \psfrag{ 60l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $60$}
458: \psfrag{ 80l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $80$}
459: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
460: %
461: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
462: \psfrag{ 1.01} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.01$}
463: \psfrag{ 1.02} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.02$}
464: \psfrag{ 1.03} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.03$}
465: \psfrag{ 1.04} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.04$}
466: \psfrag{ 1.06} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.06$}
467: \psfrag{ 1.08} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.08$}
468: \psfrag{ 1.1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
469: %
470: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
471: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
472: %
473: \psfrag{a/l0.05} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.05$}
474: \psfrag{a/l0.1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.1$}
475: \psfrag{a/l0.15} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.15$}
476: \psfrag{a/l0.2} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.2$}
477: %
478: \psfrag{B} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B=1$}
479: \psfrag{EA} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA=1$}
480: %
481: \psfrag{B/EA1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B/EA=1$}
482: \psfrag{B/EA2} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B/EA=2$}
483: \psfrag{B/EA3} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B/EA=3$}
484: \psfrag{B/EA4} [l][l]{\scriptsize $B/EA=4$}
485: %
486: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
487: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
488: %
489: \centering
490: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig5.eps}
491: \caption{Sinusoidal inextensible elastica. Comparison of the
492: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves for globally inextensible sinusoidal
493: elasticas having different $a$) $a_0/l_0$ and $b$) $B/EA$ ratios.
494: }
495: \label{fig5}
496: \end{figure}
497: %------------- Figure -----
498:
499: In the last two cases we consider the planar incompressible and stationary energy
500: sinusoidal elasticas. Figures \ref{fig6}a and \ref{fig7}a
501: present the influence of the change in ratio $a_0/l_0$ on
502: the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves of the respective cases. Like the
503: inextensible case the ratio $a_0/l_0$ is varied within
504: the interval $[0.05,0.2]$ while the value of the ratio
505: $EA/B$ is kept fixed at $30$. Clearly, the
506: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves for the
507: planar incompressible and stationary energy cases do not exhibit a sharp
508: transition to
509: stiffening behavior. This is in contrast with the inextensible
510: case in Figure \ref{fig5}. Variation of the ratio $a_0/l_0$ does not
511: cause significant change in the shape of the curves.
512:
513: %------------- Figure -----
514: \begin{figure}[ht]
515: %
516: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
517: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
518: \psfrag{ 200l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $200$}
519: \psfrag{ 300l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $300$}
520: \psfrag{ 400l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $400$}
521: \psfrag{ 500l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $500$}
522: %
523: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
524: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
525: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
526: \psfrag{ 2.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2.5$}
527: %
528: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
529: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
530: %
531: \psfrag{a/l0.02} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.02$}
532: \psfrag{a/l0.08} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.08$}
533: \psfrag{a/l0.14} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.14$}
534: \psfrag{a/l0.2} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.2$}
535: \psfrag{a/l0.1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.1$}
536: %
537: \psfrag{EA/B30} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=30$}
538: \psfrag{EA/B120} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=120$}
539: \psfrag{EA/B210} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=210$}
540: \psfrag{EA/B300} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=300$}
541: %
542: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
543: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
544: %
545: \centering
546: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig6.eps}
547: \caption{Sinusoidal elastica surrounded by a planar incompressible
548: medium. Comparison of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves for different
549: $a$) $a_0/l_0$ and $b$) $EA/B$ ratios.
550: }
551: \label{fig6}
552: \end{figure}
553: %------------- Figure -----
554: The sensitivity of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves for the separate cases
555: to changes in material parameters $EA$ and $B$ is presented in Figures
556: \ref{fig6}b and \ref{fig7}b, respectively. The ratio
557: $EA/B$ varies in the range $[30,300]$. The axial
558: stiffening is clearly reflected in the curves. No striking
559: shape change is observed. We draw attention to the fact that the
560: $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves in Figures \ref{fig6} and \ref{fig7} for the
561: planar incompressible and stationary energy cases of the sinusoidal elastica
562: are quite similar. The reasons for this similarity have
563: been already outlined in Remark 8.
564:
565: %------------- Figure -----
566: \begin{figure}[ht]
567: %
568: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
569: \psfrag{ 100l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $100$}
570: \psfrag{ 200l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $200$}
571: \psfrag{ 300l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $300$}
572: \psfrag{ 400l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $400$}
573: \psfrag{ 500l}[r][r]{\footnotesize $500$}
574: %
575: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
576: \psfrag{ 1.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.5$}
577: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
578: \psfrag{ 2.5} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2.5$}
579: %
580: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Tip force $f$}
581: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda$}
582: %
583: \psfrag{a/l0.02} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.02$}
584: \psfrag{a/l0.08} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.08$}
585: \psfrag{a/l0.14} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.14$}
586: \psfrag{a/l0.2} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.2$}
587: \psfrag{a/l0.1} [l][l]{\scriptsize $a_0/l_0=0.1$}
588: %
589: \psfrag{EA/B30} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=30$}
590: \psfrag{EA/B120} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=120$}
591: \psfrag{EA/B210} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=210$}
592: \psfrag{EA/B300} [l][l]{\scriptsize $EA/B=300$}
593: %
594: \psfrag{a} [l][l]{\normalsize $a$)}
595: \psfrag{b} [l][l]{\normalsize $b$)}
596: %
597: \centering
598: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{fig7.eps}
599: \caption{Sinusoidal elastica deforming by attaining a stationary strain
600: energy state. Comparison of the $f{-}\bar\lambda$ curves for
601: different $a$) $a_0/l_0$ and $b$) $EA/B$ ratios.
602: }
603: \label{fig7}
604: \end{figure}
605: %------------- Figure -----
606:
607:
608: \subsection{Comparison with experiment}
609: In the preceding section the sensitivities of the $f-\bar{\lambda}$
610: curves to geometric and material parameters have been discussed for
611: both the circular-arc and the sinusoidal elasticas subjected to two
612: additional kinematic assumptions, and the stationary strain energy
613: assumption. In this section we carry out a comparison with
614: data reported by \citet{freed+doehring05} (Figure \ref{fig8}).
615: %------------- Figure -----
616: \begin{figure}[thb]
617: %
618: \psfrag{ 0l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0$}
619: \psfrag{ 0.2l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0.2$}
620: \psfrag{ 0.4l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0.4$}
621: \psfrag{ 0.6l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0.6$}
622: \psfrag{ 0.8l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $0.8$}
623: \psfrag{ 1l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1$}
624: \psfrag{ 1.2l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
625: \psfrag{ 1.4l} [r][r]{\footnotesize $1.4$}
626: %
627: \psfrag{ 1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1$}
628: \psfrag{ 1.1} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.1$}
629: \psfrag{ 1.2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.2$}
630: \psfrag{ 1.4} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.4$}
631: \psfrag{ 1.6} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.6$}
632: \psfrag{ 1.8} [c][c]{\footnotesize $1.8$}
633: \psfrag{ 2} [c][c]{\footnotesize $2$}
634: %
635: \psfrag{f} [c][c]{\footnotesize Nominal Stress $\:[MPa]$}
636: \psfrag{l} [l][l]{\footnotesize $\bar\lambda\:[-]$}
637: %
638: \psfrag{exp} [l][l]{\scriptsize Experiment}
639: \psfrag{sin_ie} [l][l]{\scriptsize Sinusoidal}
640: \psfrag{cir_me} [l][l]{\scriptsize Circular-Arc}
641: %
642: \centering
643: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig8.eps}
644: \caption{Simulations of experimental data by the inextensible
645: sinusoidal elastica ($a_0/l_0=0.245\;, B/EA=25\:\mathrm{mm}^{-1}$) and the
646: circular-arc elastica attaining a stationary strain energy state
647: ($R=0.013\:\mathrm{mm}\;,\theta_{0}=4\pi/ 15\;,
648: EA/B=7\times 10^{6}\:\mathrm{mm}^{-2}$). In the elastica models $R,
649: a_0$ and $l_0$ were in mm
650: $B$ in $\mathrm{N}/\mathrm{mm}$ and $EA$ in $\mathrm{MPa}/\mathrm{mm}$.
651: }
652: \label{fig8}
653: \end{figure}
654: %------------- Figure -----
655: These data correspond to uniaxial extension experiments on five
656: chordae tendineae from procine mitral valves. They demonstrate a long
657: toe region relative to the maximum stretch in each experiment. At
658: the heel $(\bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}\approx 1.13)$, the nominal
659: stress--stretch curve stiffens sharply to a larger
660: slope. From the results in Figures \ref{fig0}--\ref{fig7} of the
661: preceding parameter study, it is apparent that this behavior can only
662: be captured either by the inextensible sinusoidal elastica, or the
663: circular-arc elastica attaining a stationary energy state. Figure
664: \ref{fig8} compares the experiment with these two models with the
665: material parameters given in the caption. Both the sinusoidal and the
666: circular-arc models successfully match the data in the toe region. The
667: inextensible sinusoidal model can also predict the upturning region,
668: but its stiffness beyond the heel region rapidly diverges and fails to
669: match the experimental results. In the case of the circular-arc model,
670: the value of
671: $\theta_{0}$ can be analytically determined from the
672: macro-stretch value at the heel. We solve for $\theta_0$ such that
673: $\theta_0/\sin\theta_{0} = \bar\lambda_\mathrm{heel}=1.13$.
674: This gives the initial angle $\theta_{0}\approx 4\pi/ 15$, and
675: the ratio of the axial and bending stiffness $EA/B$ can be tuned to
676: match the slopes of the regions just preceding and succeeding
677: the heel region. The initial radius $R$ is varied to match the
678: sharpness of the slope change at the heel region. The
679: comparison of the stationary strain energy circular-arc elastica and the
680: experimental data clearly illustrates that the proposed model
681: quantitatively captures the experimental data with just a few
682: parameters: $\theta_0, R, B$ and $EA$, all of which are very
683: well-motivated physically. Clearly, other such experimental data can be matched
684: without difficulty.
685:
686:
687: