Resolving the viscoelasticity and anisotropy dependence of the mechanical properties of skin from a porcine model

• Published in: Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology 2016-04, Vol.15 (2), p.433-446
• Main Authors: Wong, W. L. E., Joyce, T. J., Goh, K. L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis of variance; Animals; Anisotropy; Biological and Medical Physics; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering; Biophysics; Collagen; Elasticity; Engineering; Factor analysis; Mathematical models; Mechanical analysis; Mechanical properties; Models, Animal; Models, Biological; Orientation; Original Paper; Skin; Skin - anatomy & histology; Space life sciences; Strain; Stress, Mechanical; Sus scrofa; Theoretical and Applied Mechanics; Tissues; Torso; Variance analysis; Viscoelasticity; Viscosity
• ISSN: 1617-7959; 1617-7940
• DOI: 10.1007/s10237-015-0700-2

The mechanical response of skin to external loads is influenced by anisotropy and viscoelasticity of the tissue, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we report a study of the main effects of tissue orientation (TO, which is linked to anisotropy) and strain rate (SR, a measure of viscoelasticity), as well as the interaction effects between the two factors, on the tensile properties of skin from a porcine model. Tensile testing to rupture of porcine skin tissue was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of the tissue modulus of elasticity ( E ) and fracture-related properties, namely maximum stress ( σ U ) and strain ( ε U ) at σ U , to varying SR and TO. Specimens were excised from the abdominal skin in two orientations, namely parallel (P) and right angle (R) to the torso midline. Each TO was investigated at three SR levels, namely 0.007–0.015  s - 1 (low), 0.040 s - 1 (mid) and 0.065 s - 1 (high). Two-factor analysis of variance revealed that the respective parameters responded differently to varying SR and TO. Significant changes in the σ U were observed with different TOs but not with SR. The ε U decreased significantly with increasing SR, but no significant variation was observed for different TOs. Significant changes in E were observed with different TOs; E increased significantly with increasing SR. More importantly, the respective mechanical parameters were not significantly influenced by interactions between SR and TO. These findings suggest that the trends associated with the changes in the skin mechanical properties may be attributed partly to differences in the anisotropy and viscoelasticity but not through any interaction between viscoelasticity and anisotropy.