No Cover Image

Journal article 5 views

A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics

Antonio Gil Orcid Logo

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, Volume: 179

Swansea University Author: Antonio Gil Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

DOI (Published version): 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2026.107423

Abstract

Typical computational methods for vascular biosolid mechanics represent the blood vessel wall as a membrane, shell, or 3D solid. Each of these formulations has advantages and disadvantages concerning accuracy, ease of implementation, and computational costs. Despite the widespread use of these formu...

Full description

Published in: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Published: Elsevier 2026
Online Access: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616126000925?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=9eba280c6b41bed0
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa71735
first_indexed 2026-04-13T11:40:29Z
last_indexed 2026-04-13T11:40:29Z
id cronfa71735
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>71735</id><entry>2026-04-13</entry><title>A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>1f5666865d1c6de9469f8b7d0d6d30e2</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-7753-1414</ORCID><firstname>Antonio</firstname><surname>Gil</surname><name>Antonio Gil</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2026-04-13</date><deptcode>ACEM</deptcode><abstract>Typical computational methods for vascular biosolid mechanics represent the blood vessel wall as a membrane, shell, or 3D solid. Each of these formulations has advantages and disadvantages concerning accuracy, ease of implementation, and computational costs. Despite the widespread use of these formulations, a systematic comparison of the performance and accuracy of these formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics has remained wanting. Therefore, the decision regarding the optimal choice often relies on intuition or previous experience, with unclear consequences of choosing one approach over the other. Here, we present a systematic comparison among three different formulations to represent the vessel wall as: (i) a nonlinear membrane, (ii) a nonlinear, rotation-free shell, and (iii) a nonlinear 3D solid. For the 3D solid model, we consider two different implementations employing linear and quadratic interpolation. Convergence analysis for displacement and stress are presented for all formulations. We compare results in both idealized and subject-specific mouse aortic geometries. For the idealized cylindrical geometry, we compare our results against the axisymmetric solution for five different wall thickness-to-radius ratios. Subsequently, a comparison of these approaches is presented for an idealized arterial bifurcation having regionally varying wall thickness. Lastly, we compare results for a subject-specific mouse geometry with regionally varying material properties and wall thickness. External tissue support boundary conditions model the effect of perivascular tissue. Based on our results, the rotation-free shell formulation represents the most advantageous compromise between computational cost and accuracy for large scale vascular biomechanics applications that include complex geometries.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials</journal><volume>179</volume><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Elsevier</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Nonlinear membrane; Rotation free shell; Arterial wall mechanics</keywords><publishedDay>2</publishedDay><publishedMonth>4</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2026</publishedYear><publishedDate>2026-04-02</publishedDate><doi>10.1016/j.jmbbm.2026.107423</doi><url>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616126000925?ref=pdf_download&amp;amp;fr=RR-2&amp;amp;rr=9eba280c6b41bed0</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>ACEM</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Another institution paid the OA fee</apcterm><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2026-04-13T12:50:08.9741892</lastEdited><Created>2026-04-13T12:29:37.5438638</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Civil Engineering</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Antonio</firstname><surname>Gil</surname><orcid>0000-0001-7753-1414</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling v2 71735 2026-04-13 A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics 1f5666865d1c6de9469f8b7d0d6d30e2 0000-0001-7753-1414 Antonio Gil Antonio Gil true false 2026-04-13 ACEM Typical computational methods for vascular biosolid mechanics represent the blood vessel wall as a membrane, shell, or 3D solid. Each of these formulations has advantages and disadvantages concerning accuracy, ease of implementation, and computational costs. Despite the widespread use of these formulations, a systematic comparison of the performance and accuracy of these formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics has remained wanting. Therefore, the decision regarding the optimal choice often relies on intuition or previous experience, with unclear consequences of choosing one approach over the other. Here, we present a systematic comparison among three different formulations to represent the vessel wall as: (i) a nonlinear membrane, (ii) a nonlinear, rotation-free shell, and (iii) a nonlinear 3D solid. For the 3D solid model, we consider two different implementations employing linear and quadratic interpolation. Convergence analysis for displacement and stress are presented for all formulations. We compare results in both idealized and subject-specific mouse aortic geometries. For the idealized cylindrical geometry, we compare our results against the axisymmetric solution for five different wall thickness-to-radius ratios. Subsequently, a comparison of these approaches is presented for an idealized arterial bifurcation having regionally varying wall thickness. Lastly, we compare results for a subject-specific mouse geometry with regionally varying material properties and wall thickness. External tissue support boundary conditions model the effect of perivascular tissue. Based on our results, the rotation-free shell formulation represents the most advantageous compromise between computational cost and accuracy for large scale vascular biomechanics applications that include complex geometries. Journal Article Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 179 Elsevier Nonlinear membrane; Rotation free shell; Arterial wall mechanics 2 4 2026 2026-04-02 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2026.107423 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616126000925?ref=pdf_download&amp;fr=RR-2&amp;rr=9eba280c6b41bed0 COLLEGE NANME Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering COLLEGE CODE ACEM Swansea University Another institution paid the OA fee 2026-04-13T12:50:08.9741892 2026-04-13T12:29:37.5438638 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Civil Engineering Antonio Gil 0000-0001-7753-1414 1
title A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
spellingShingle A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
Antonio Gil
title_short A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
title_full A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
title_fullStr A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
title_full_unstemmed A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
title_sort A systematic comparison of membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics
author_id_str_mv 1f5666865d1c6de9469f8b7d0d6d30e2
author_id_fullname_str_mv 1f5666865d1c6de9469f8b7d0d6d30e2_***_Antonio Gil
author Antonio Gil
author2 Antonio Gil
format Journal article
container_title Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
container_volume 179
publishDate 2026
institution Swansea University
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2026.107423
publisher Elsevier
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Civil Engineering{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Civil Engineering
url https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616126000925?ref=pdf_download&amp;fr=RR-2&amp;rr=9eba280c6b41bed0
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description Typical computational methods for vascular biosolid mechanics represent the blood vessel wall as a membrane, shell, or 3D solid. Each of these formulations has advantages and disadvantages concerning accuracy, ease of implementation, and computational costs. Despite the widespread use of these formulations, a systematic comparison of the performance and accuracy of these formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics has remained wanting. Therefore, the decision regarding the optimal choice often relies on intuition or previous experience, with unclear consequences of choosing one approach over the other. Here, we present a systematic comparison among three different formulations to represent the vessel wall as: (i) a nonlinear membrane, (ii) a nonlinear, rotation-free shell, and (iii) a nonlinear 3D solid. For the 3D solid model, we consider two different implementations employing linear and quadratic interpolation. Convergence analysis for displacement and stress are presented for all formulations. We compare results in both idealized and subject-specific mouse aortic geometries. For the idealized cylindrical geometry, we compare our results against the axisymmetric solution for five different wall thickness-to-radius ratios. Subsequently, a comparison of these approaches is presented for an idealized arterial bifurcation having regionally varying wall thickness. Lastly, we compare results for a subject-specific mouse geometry with regionally varying material properties and wall thickness. External tissue support boundary conditions model the effect of perivascular tissue. Based on our results, the rotation-free shell formulation represents the most advantageous compromise between computational cost and accuracy for large scale vascular biomechanics applications that include complex geometries.
published_date 2026-04-02T12:50:10Z
_version_ 1862355921739448320
score 11.101949

Similar Items