Tweet
Hello,
I have been trying to simulate the contraction of a cell (modeled as a spherical cavity) in a cuboidal ECM (modeled using the Shenoy material plugin) such that the cell radius reduces by 0.3 times its initial value. The examples provided with the plugin simulate 1/8th of the geometry, taking into consideration the existence of xy, xz and yz planes of symmetry. I have (i) tried to recreate the example with 1/8th of the geometry (Case 1) and (ii) tried to simulate the contraction of the cell in the ECM without any model simplification (Case 2).
After obtaining the results, I face 3 questions.
1. The results are markedly different for the two cases. (eg. the maximum stress observed in case 1 is 3.02 kPa while that in case 2 is 0.693 kPa). Why is this so?
2. Why do both the cases lack a spherical symmetry in the stress distribution, considering that the cuboidal ECM has an edge length sufficiently (40 times) larger than the cell radius?
3. When case 2 is visualized using a plane-cut perpendicular to the x-axis, the cell instead of contracting, appears to move along the negative z direction. (However, the results appear fine when plane-cut is perpendicular to the z-axis). I am guessing this is due to how the 'normal displacement' B.C. is defined, however I can't be sure because I could not find any theory on its implementation. Can you shed some light on this matter?
I have attached my simulation files.
I have been trying to simulate the contraction of a cell (modeled as a spherical cavity) in a cuboidal ECM (modeled using the Shenoy material plugin) such that the cell radius reduces by 0.3 times its initial value. The examples provided with the plugin simulate 1/8th of the geometry, taking into consideration the existence of xy, xz and yz planes of symmetry. I have (i) tried to recreate the example with 1/8th of the geometry (Case 1) and (ii) tried to simulate the contraction of the cell in the ECM without any model simplification (Case 2).
After obtaining the results, I face 3 questions.
1. The results are markedly different for the two cases. (eg. the maximum stress observed in case 1 is 3.02 kPa while that in case 2 is 0.693 kPa). Why is this so?
2. Why do both the cases lack a spherical symmetry in the stress distribution, considering that the cuboidal ECM has an edge length sufficiently (40 times) larger than the cell radius?
3. When case 2 is visualized using a plane-cut perpendicular to the x-axis, the cell instead of contracting, appears to move along the negative z direction. (However, the results appear fine when plane-cut is perpendicular to the z-axis). I am guessing this is due to how the 'normal displacement' B.C. is defined, however I can't be sure because I could not find any theory on its implementation. Can you shed some light on this matter?
I have attached my simulation files.
Comment