Journal of Applied Physiology Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 82: 1626-1636, 1997;
8750-7587/97 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boriek, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rodarte, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boriek, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rodarte, J. R.

Journal of Applied Physiology
Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 1626-1636, May 1997
GAS EXCHANGE, MECHANICS, AND AIRWAYS

Effects of transverse fiber stiffness and central tendon on displacement and shape of a simple diaphragm model

Aladin M. Boriek and Joseph R. Rodarte

Pulmonary Section, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Boriek, Aladin M., and Joseph R. Rodarte. Effects of transverse fiber stiffness and central tendon on displacement and shape of a simple diaphragm model. J. Appl. Physiol. 82(5): 1626-1636, 1997.---Our previous experimental results (A. M. Boriek, S. Lui, and J. R. Rodarte. J. Appl. Physiol. 75: 527-533, 1993 [Medline] and A. M. Boriek, T. A. Wilson, and J. R. Rodarte. J. Appl. Physiol. 76: 223-229, 1994 [Medline] ) showed that 1) costal diaphragm shape is similar at functional residual capacity and end inspiration regardless of whether the diaphragm muscle shortens actively (increased tension) or passively (decreased tension); 2) diaphragmatic muscle length changes minimally in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers, suggesting the diaphragm may be inextensible in that direction; and 3) the central tendon is not stretched by physiological stresses. A two-dimensional orthotropic material has two different stiffnesses in orthogonal directions. In the plane tangent to the muscle surface, these directions are along the fibers and transverse to the fibers. We wondered whether orthotropic material properties in the muscular region of the diaphragm and inextensibility of the central tendon might contribute to the constancy of diaphragm shape. Therefore, in the present study, we examined the effects of stiffness transverse to muscle fibers and inextensibility of the central tendon on diaphragmatic displacement and shape. Finite element hemispherical models of the diaphragm were developed by using pressurized isotropic and orthotropic membranes with a wide range of stiffness ratios. We also tested heterogeneous models, in which the muscle sheet was an orthotropic material, having transverse fiber stiffness greater than that along the fibers, with the central tendon being an inextensible isotropic cap. These models revealed that increased transverse stiffness limits the shape change of the diaphragm. Furthermore, an inextensible cap simulating the central tendon dramatically limits the change in shape as well as the membrane displacement in response to pressure. These findings provide a plausible mechanism by which the diaphragm maintains similar shapes despite different physiological loads. This study suggests that changes of diaphragm shape are restricted because the central tendon is essentially inextensible and stiffness in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers is greater than stiffness along the fibers.

respiratory muscles; chest wall; diaphragm mechanics


INTRODUCTION

THE DIAPHRAGM is a thin sheet composed of a central tendon and a fringe of costal and crural muscle. Diaphragmatic muscle fibers originate from the central tendon and insert on the rib cage and spine. Curvature of the muscle fibers is essential for converting tension developed by the muscle into transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) and muscle shortening into diaphragmatic displacement. The diaphragm can be categorized in mechanics as a membrane: a structure capable of carrying significant stresses in two dimensions but too thin to carry either bending moments or shear forces out of the plane of the membrane.

Current models of the diaphragm include those developed by Gates et al. (7) and Whitelaw et al. (14). The former assumed the diaphragm to be an axisymmetric membrane composed of homogeneous anisotropic material. The anisotropy was determined by in-plane stiffnesses in both the fiber direction (meridional) and in the direction transverse to the fibers (circumferential). Gates et al. (7) measured the in-plane strains along the fiber direction and transverse to the fibers, the radii of curvature, and diaphragm thickness at three different prescribed values of Pdi. Their results demonstrated that passive diaphragm stiffness is greater in the direction transverse to the fibers than along the fibers.

Whitelaw et al. (14) relaxed the hypothesis of axisymmetry by Gates et al. (7) but assumed the diaphragm to be isotropic, having uniform tension similar to a soap film. Whitelaw and colleagues (14) computed the shape of a membrane with this tension distribution supported on a boundary with the shape of a transverse section of the human thorax; the membrane was loaded by hydrostatic pressure applied to one surface. When inflated, the dome of the model developed a double hump similar to that seen in the human diaphragm.

Our previous experimental results (1) showed that shape of the midcostal region of the dog diaphragm is similar at functional residual capacity (FRC) and end inspiration. This is true whether the muscle shortens actively or passively. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the diaphragm dimension changes are insignificant in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers, suggesting that the muscle is essentially inextensible in that direction (3). These findings are consistent with those of Gates et al. (7) and Strumf and associates (12), who measured the biaxial stress-strain relationship of the passive canine diaphragm.

We developed a heterogeneous membrane model to explore the effects of anisotropic muscle sheet and an inextensible central tendon on diaphragm curvature. This model is based on two fundamental parameters: 1) the ratio of stiffness transverse to the muscle fibers and stiffness along the fibers, and 2) size of the central tendon. Effects of these parameters were tested by using both uniform pressure and hydrostatic pressure. By investigating the effects of central tendon size, we tested the hypothesis that tendon inextensibility severely restricts the change of diaphragm curvature in response to Pdi. By investigating the effects of transverse fiber stiffness, we tested the hypothesis that a greater stiffness in the transverse direction to the muscle fibers compared with the stiffness along the fibers may limit the shape change of the diaphragm in response to Pdi.


METHODS

The diaphragm was modeled by using a hemispherical membrane of uniform thickness, which was generated by rotating a planar curve called the meridian around a line in the plane of the meridian. This plane contains the principal radius of curvature of a muscle fiber. Therefore, the shape or curvature of the lines simulating muscle fibers is the same everywhere in the model, and the orientation of the fiber is restricted to be along a meridional line. Either a uniform pressure or a hydrostatic pressure was applied to the inner surface of the membrane. Hydrostatic pressure simulated the forces in a recumbent animal, in which hydrostatic gradient of abdominal pressure is larger than the pleural pressure gradient.

Curvature is defined at a point on a curve as the inverse of the radius of the best fit circle (6). Using the least squares methods, we fitted the nodal points along a muscle fiber in three-dimensional Euclidean space by using Cartesian coordinates X, Y, and Z. We used the following quadratic polynomial
<IT>z</IT> = <IT>ax</IT><SUP>2</SUP> + <IT>by</IT><SUP>2</SUP> + <IT>cx</IT> + <IT>dy</IT> + <IT>e</IT> (1)
where a, b, c, d, and e are constants.

Because our model is axisymmetric, each curved muscle fiber lies in an arbitrary meridional plane, e.g., the XZ plane. Therefore, curvature (kappa ) of a muscle fiber is given by
&kgr; = <FR><NU><FR><NU><IT>d</IT><SUP>2</SUP><IT>z</IT></NU><DE><IT>dx</IT><SUP>2</SUP></DE></FR></NU><DE><FENCE>1 + <FENCE><FR><NU><IT>dz</IT></NU><DE><IT>dx</IT></DE></FR></FENCE><SUP>2</SUP></FENCE><SUP>3/2</SUP></DE></FR> (2)

Curvature kappa  was computed for each of the finite element models that are subjected to either uniform or hydrostatic pressure gradient.

Three classes of models were used to test our hypotheses. These were 1) homogeneous (uniform properties throughout) and isotropic (material properties are not functions of orientation), 2) homogeneous and orthotropic [the membrane has elastic moduli that are different in two orthogonal directions (along the muscle fibers and transverse to the fibers)], and 3) heterogeneous (properties are functions of position in the membrane) and orthotropic. In this study, the term "heterogeneous" is used in a particular sense. The model has two homogeneous compartments: the central tendon, which is a homogeneous isotropic material, and the muscle, which is a homogeneous orthotropic material.

In using the term "orthotropic," we are referring to a material as anisotropic in a particular sense, as there are orthogonal principal axes of the stress-strain coefficient tensor. Strains in response to uniform stresses along those principal axes are different. In this special class of anisotropy, a two-dimensional material is described by four elastic constants, only three of which are independent. The structure of the diaphragm, in particular the orientation of muscle fibers, suggests that the diaphragm is an anisotropic structure. Therefore, we oriented the principal axes of our anisotropic membrane model in the meridional and circumferential directions. The meridional direction is the direction along the muscle fibers; the circumferential direction is transverse to the muscle fibers.

To facilitate comparison, identical loading conditions (uniform or hydrostatic pressure) and geometric boundary conditions (no displacements at the chest wall insertions) were applied to all models. A schematic of the hemispherical membrane model of the diaphragm simulating a supine posture is shown in Fig. 1. The anisotropic skirt of the model has a modulus of elasticity [in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers (Eperp  fiber) that was greater than along the muscle fibers (Efiber)]. Poisson's ratio (nu ij) is the ratio of transverse strain in the j direction to the longitudinal strain when stressed in the i direction; that is, nu ij = -epsilon j/epsilon i, where epsilon j and epsilon i are the lateral contraction and the longitudinal extension, respectively, during simple uniaxial tension. According to the reciprocal law of Betti (13), nu 12/Efiber = nu 21/Eperp  fiber is valid. Therefore, there are only three independent material constants. The cap simulating the central tendon is isotropic and has stiffness at least two orders of magnitude greater than transverse muscle stiffness.


Fig. 1. Schematic of a heterogeneous anisotropic hemispherical membrane model of diaphragm. This model has 2 compartments: central tendon and muscle. Constants ECT, Efiber, and Eperp  fiber are elastic moduli of central tendon, along muscle fibers, and transverse to muscle fibers, respectively. Material elastic constant nu CT is Poisson's ratio of central tendon. Material elastic constants nu 12 and nu 21 are Poisson's ratios of muscle. Cap representing central tendon is isotropic and 2 orders of magnitude stiffer than muscular skirt. Dots, nodal points; triangles, translational constraints on a specific nodal point; +, this meridional line is a line of symmetry, and symmetric boundary conditions are applied to all those nodes that lie along this line. Nodal points on symmetry line were restricted from displacement in direction perpendicular to a meridional line in the plane of the membrane. Muscle is anisotropic, having an elastic modulus in direction transverse to muscle fibers that is greater than that along muscle fibers. No displacement is allowed at insertions of the diaphragm model on chest wall (CW).
[View Larger Version of this Image (25K GIF file)]

A three-dimensional finite element membrane model of the diaphragm was developed with the use of ANSYS software (4). The model was discretized as a number of warped triangular elements having straight boundaries. A total of 402 isoparametric nonlinear membrane elements and 439 nodes were used to generate the model shown in Fig. 2; the methods are detailed in APPENDIX.


Fig. 2. A finite-element network of 402 SHELL41 membrane elements and 439 nodes. Membrane element has in-plane stiffness but no bending (out-of-plane) stiffness. SHELL41 element has 3 translational degrees of freedom at each node. Stress stiffening and large deflections were used in finite-element modeling. Triangular shape of elements is essential for large deflection analysis. Anisotropic elastic material properties were defined in directions along muscle fibers as well as in the direction transverse to fibers.
[View Larger Version of this Image (56K GIF file)]

Displacements of the nodal points along a muscle fiber relative to their unstressed positions were computed. The normal (radial) component and the meridional component of the displacement were computed in the direction perpendicular to the tangent plane of the muscle fiber and also in the direction along the fiber. The meridional angle in a supine posture was defined as zero at the apex of the hemispherical membrane, -90° at the dorsal extreme (chest wall insertion), and 90° at the ventral extreme (opposite insertion).

To investigate the accuracy of our finite element model, we compared the finite element solution with the Laplace solution of a uniformly pressurized hemispherical membrane. The principal tensile stresses (sigma 1 and sigma 2) at points along a muscle fiber produced by uniform pressure in a stiff isotropic membrane model (Emembrane = 106 P, where P is pressure) as a function of the meridional angle along with the Laplace solution of an isotropic pressurized hemispherical model are plotted in Fig. 3. The use of a stiff model was essential to maintain the hemispherical shape. Stresses were normalized by dividing their numerical value by 50 P. Figure 3 shows that stress of an isotropic membrane was essentially uniform and that sigma 1 and sigma 2 were similar. The maximum departure of the finite-element solution from the exact Laplace solution of approx 4% occurs at the boundary. The finite-element solution is, therefore, in good agreement with the analytic solution of the Laplace law (for P = 1.0 cmH2O, t = 0.1 cm, kappa 1 = kappa 2  = 0.1 1/cm, sigma 1 = sigma 2 = sigma  = P/2tkappa  = 50 cmH2O, where P is pressure imbalance across the membrane, t is thickness of the membrane, kappa 1 = kappa 2 = kappa are the principal curvatures, and sigma  is the tensile stress along principal curvatures in the plane of the membrane).


Fig. 3. Principal tensile stresses (sigma 1 and sigma 2) at points along an anisotropic muscle fiber in a uniformly pressurized stiff isotropic membrane model as a function of meridional angle computed by the ANSYS finite-element program and the Laplace law. Stresses are normalized by dividing their numerical value by 50 P, where P is pressure. Stresses are essentially uniform, and maximum principal stress sigma 1 is the same as minimum principal stress sigma 2. Finite-element solution is in good agreement with Laplace solution. A maximum departure of approx 4% of finite-element solution from Laplace analytical solution occurs at the boundary.
[View Larger Version of this Image (18K GIF file)]


RESULTS

We first compared our homogeneous anisotropic models (Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 5, 10, 15, 20) with isotropic models having the same dimensions, geometry, and loading conditions. We assumed stiffness of the isotropic model to be the same as stiffness in the direction along the fibers of the anisotropic model. Models were subjected to either uniform pressures or hydrostatic pressure gradients; gradient pressures varied from 0.5 Pmean at meridional angle +90° to 1.5 Pmean at meridional angle -90°, where Pmean is the transmembrane pressure in the uniformly pressurized models. Deformed shapes of isotropic and anisotropic (Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 5) models subjected to uniform pressure are shown in Fig. 4. At and near the chest wall insertions, the curvature of the isotropic model is greater than the undeformed shape. Near the pole, the curvature is nearly the same as that of the undeformed shape. A muscle fiber in the deformed anisotropic model appears to have a similar shape to that of the undeformed shape near the points of insertion of the diaphragm on the chest wall. Therefore, the radius of curvature of a muscle fiber in that region should be similar to that of the undeformed state. There is a change of shape, however, near the apex where an anisotropic muscle fiber departs from the undeformed hemispherical shape.


Fig. 4. Deformed shapes of isotropic (Efiber = Eperp  fiber = Eeverywhere, where Eeverywhere is elastic moduli everywhere) and anisotropic (Eperp  fiber = 5 Efiber) models in response to applied uniform pressure. At and near CW insertions, curvature of isotropic model is greater than undeformed shape. Near the pole, curvature is nearly the same as that of undeformed shape. Deformed anisotropic fiber has slightly smaller curvature than its undeformed state near CW insertion, so that anisotropic material properties limit shape change from undeformed state. There is a change of shape near the apex, however, where curvature of an anisotropic muscle fiber departs significantly from a hemispherical shape.
[View Larger Version of this Image (11K GIF file)]

Normal and meridional displacements are plotted against meridional angle for uniformly pressurized isotropic and anisotropic models. For anisotropic models, the ratio of stiffness in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers to stiffness along the fibers varies between 5 and 20 (Fig. 5). A point on an isotropic muscle fiber displaces minimally along the fiber, and such a displacement is independent of the angle between the line of insertion on the chest wall and the point on the fiber. Normal displacement, however, increased from zero at the line of insertion on the chest wall to a nearly constant value by ±60°.


Fig. 5. Displacement in perpendicular direction to a tangent plane at a point p along a muscle fiber (normal displacement) as well as displacement along a muscle fiber (meridional displacement) as a function of meridional angle for isotropic (Efiber = Eperp  fiber = Eeverywhere) and anisotropic models having a stiffness ratio of Eperp  fiber / Efiber that varies between 5 and 20. In supine posture, meridional angle is zero at the extreme point on the dome (apex), -90° at dorsal region of insertion on CW, and 90° at ventral region of insertion on CW. Normal displacement in this model is essentially uniform away from insertions on CW. Meridional displacement of a point on an isotropic muscle fiber is markedly small. Anisotropic muscle fibers having Eperp  fiber / Efiber > 5 demonstrate essentially the same displacement components in response to applied pressure. Normal displacement is maximum at the apex and is greater than that of the isotropic model. Meridional displacement, however, is smallest at the extreme point at the dome (apex) and maximum midway between the apex and the CW insertion. Note that meridional displacement for anisotropic models at the apex approaches that of isotropic model.
[View Larger Version of this Image (30K GIF file)]

Deformed shapes of uniformly pressurized heterogeneous anisotropic models are shown in Fig. 6. The central tendon in the stressed state has virtually the same radius of curvature as that of the undeformed state. This observation indicates that the shape change of the central tendon in response to pressure was dramatically restricted. Minimal shape change resulting from greater sizes of central tendon is illustrated by comparing Fig. 6, A-C. Surface area of the central tendon in the dog is ~20% of total surface area of the diaphragm (1). This varies among mammals, however, so we modeled central tendon sizes that varied from 21 to 76% of total surface area in undeformed models.


Fig. 6. Effects of the extent of an essentially inextensible cap simulating central tendon and increased in-plane transverse stiffness in muscular skirt, subjected to a uniform pressure. Deformed state of isotropic and anisotropic muscle fibers is shown to illustrate effects of increased transverse stiffness on fiber shape. Stressed shapes of central tendon with essentially inextensible isotropic material of sizes shown in A-C have virtually the same shape as that of unstressed state. MTJ, muscle fiber junction on central tendon. In these models, ratios of surface area of central tendon to total surface area are 0.33 (A), 0.66 (B), and 0.76 (C). The greater the size of central tendon, the smaller the volume displaced by transmembrane pressure.
[View Larger Version of this Image (15K GIF file)]

Normal and meridional displacements for heterogeneous anisotropic models are shown in Fig. 7, A and B, respectively. Effect of central tendon size on displacement of a point on the membrane in response to a uniform pressure is shown as a function of cap angle. The greater the size of central tendon, the smaller the normal and meridional displacements. Normal displacement of the isotropic fiber is greater than the anisotropic fiber (Fig. 7A). Models with isotropic muscle fibers have smaller meridional displacement when compared with the anisotropic muscle fibers. The apex has essentially no meridional component of displacement (Fig. 7B).



Fig. 7. Normal displacement (A) and meridional displacement (B) in uniformly pressurized heterogeneous membrane models with isotropic muscle fibers (a) compared with those heterogeneous models with anisotropic muscle fibers (b) are shown as a function of meridional angle. Isotropic skirt stiffness E is equal to 500 P. Stiffness ratio of anisotropic skirt Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 20. In models a, central tendon stiffness ECT = 102 E. In models b, ECT = 102 Eperp  fiber and Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 20. Normal displacement of anisotropic fibers (models a) is greater than that of isotropic fibers (models b). In contrast, normal displacement of inextensible caps in models a is smaller than corresponding caps in models b. In general, meridional displacements (along muscle fibers) are smaller in models a than in models b. Effects of the extent of central tendon on normal and meridional displacement components are tested by varying the size of the cap simulating inextensible central tendon. Ratios of central tendon surface area to total area of diaphragm differ in 4 models. These ratios are 0.21, 0.33, 0.50, and 0.66, corresponding to cap angle beta  values of 37, 60, 90, and 120, respectively. The greater the angle beta  is, the smaller the meridional displacement of a point on a simulated anisotropic muscle fiber in response to a uniform pressure. Greater sizes of central tendons reduce normal and meridional displacements, therefore, limiting the shape change of membrane in response to pressure. In all models, the extreme point on dome (apex) has essentially no meridional displacement component.
[View Larger Versions of these Images (31 + 36K GIF file)]

The effect of the hydrostatic pressure gradient on the deformation of homogeneous isotropic and orthotropic membranes is illustrated in Fig. 8. The deformed state of the isotropic model in the ventral diaphragm (low-pressure region) has a shape that is similar to that of the orthotropic model. In contrast, at the dorsal region, the deformed state of the isotropic model departs significantly from the orthotropic model and sags in the gravitationally dependent region of the diaphragm (dorsal in the supine position). The dependent part of the orthotropic membrane is very similar to the nondependent region and the undeformed shape. When the uniform and hydrostatic pressure gradient load cases are compared, the orthotropic model has very similar shapes with different pressure distributions, in contrast to the isotropic model.


Fig. 8. Deformed shapes of a muscle fiber in isotropic (Efiber = Eperp  fiber = Eeverywhere) and anisotropic (Eperp  fiber = 20 Efiber) material models of diaphragm subjected to hydrostatic pressure gradient in supine posture. Pressure varies from 0.5 Pmean at a meridional angle of +90° to 1.5 Pmean at a meridional angle of -90°, where Pmean is value of pressure imbalance in uniformly pressurized membrane models. Deformed state of an anisotropic muscle fiber has smaller curvature than its undeformed state near CW insertions. This is true in both low- and high-pressure regions. An isotropic muscle fiber sags slightly in gravitationally dependent region of the model (dorsal; high-pressure side). Near the CW, curvature of isotropic fiber is significantly smaller than its undeformed state. In contrast, near the apex, curvature is significantly greater than the undeformed state.
[View Larger Version of this Image (14K GIF file)]

Normal and meridional displacements of hydrostatic pressure gradient models as a function of the meridional angle are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that, at a low-pressure region (ventral), a point on a muscle fiber in the isotropic model had essentially identical displacement along the fibers as that of the anisotropic models. At the high-pressure region (dorsal), the isotropic model had much greater normal and meridional displacements than did the anisotropic models of the diaphragm.


Fig. 9. Normal and meridional displacement of points along a muscle fiber in pressure gradient-loaded membranes as a function of meridional angle for isotropic (Efiber = Eperp  fiber = Eeverywhere) and anisotropic models having a ratio of Eperp  fiber / Efiber that varies between 5 and 20. Pressure varies, from 0.50 at a meridional angle of 90° to 1.5 Pmean at a meridional angle of -90°. At the low-pressure region of membrane, an isotropic muscle fiber has slightly greater normal displacement than that of an anisotropic fiber. However, at the low-pressure region of membrane, isotropic fiber exhibits essentially the same meridional displacement as that of anisotropic fiber. At the high-pressure region of membrane, however, an isotropic fiber has a much greater normal displacement than that of the anisotropic fiber.
[View Larger Version of this Image (24K GIF file)]

Effects of hydrostatic pressure gradient on shape and displacement of heterogeneous anisotropic models are shown in Fig. 10, A-C. Inextensible caps, of the same sizes as in Fig. 6, simulating central tendon, markedly reduce the displacement of the apex of the membrane. Deformed state of the central tendon has virtually the same radius of curvature as that of the undeformed state. Effects of inextensible central tendon in reducing the displacement of the apex of the membrane are more pronounced in the pressure gradient model than in the uniform pressure model.


Fig. 10. Effects of extent of an essentially inextensible isotropic cap simulating central tendon and increased stiffness in the direction transverse to fibers in the anisotropic skirt, simulating muscle subjected to hydrostatic pressure gradient. Deformed state of isotropic and anisotropic muscle fibers is shown to illustrate effects of increased transverse stiffness on fiber shape. Inextensible caps markedly reduce displacement of the extreme point on the dome (apex). Caps shown are the same sizes as those in Fig. 6, A-C. Caps have virtually the same radius of curvature as that of the undeformed state. The greater the size of central tendon, the smaller the volume displaced by applied pressure.
[View Larger Version of this Image (27K GIF file)]

Normal and meridional displacements of heterogeneous models subjected to hydrostatic pressure as a function of the meridional angle are shown in Fig. 11, A and B, respectively. In general, the greater the size of the central tendon, the smaller the displacement of the membrane. As illustrated in Fig. 11A, at the low-pressure region of the membrane, an isotropic muscle fiber has slightly greater normal displacement than that of an anisotropic fiber. However, at the high-pressure region (dorsal), the isotropic model has a much greater normal displacement than does the anisotropic models of the diaphragm. It can be seen that, at a low-pressure region (ventral), a point on a muscle fiber in the isotropic model has essentially identical displacement along the fibers (meridional displacement) as that of the anisotropic models (Fig. 11B).



Fig. 11. Normal displacement (A) and meridional displacement (B) in hydrostatically pressurized heterogeneous membrane models with isotropic muscle fibers (a), compared with those heterogeneous models with anisotropic muscle fibers (b), are shown as a function of meridional angle. Stiffness of isotropic model E = 500 P; stiffness ratio of anisotropic model Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 20. In models a, ECT = 102 E. In models b, ECT = 102 Eperp  fiber. Stiffness ratio of anisotropic skirt Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 20. Pressure varies from 0.5 Pmean at a meridional angle of -90° (ventral; supine posture) to 1.5 Pmean at a meridional angle of 90° (dorsal; supine posture). In high-pressure side, both normal and meridional displacements are significantly greater in isotropic fibers of heterogeneous models a than those in the anisotropic fibers of heterogeneous models b. In low-pressure side, meridional component of displacement is essentially identical for both isotropic and anisotropic fibers. The greater the extent of central tendon, the smaller the displacement of diaphragm. Displacement of an anisotropic fiber is not affected by size of central tendon.
[View Larger Versions of these Images (32 + 31K GIF file)]

The curvature along a muscle fiber is plotted against the meridional angle for isotropic and anisotropic homogeneous models subjected to uniform pressure (Fig. 12A) and hydrostatic pressure gradient (Fig. 12B), compared with the curvature of the undeformed shape of a curved fiber that lies on a perfect hemispherical model. Because our model assumes a radius of curvature of 10 cm for the undeformed shape, the curvature is 0.1 1/cm. In Fig. 12A, for meridional angles less than approx 45°, the deformed anisotropic models with stiffness ratios Eperp  fiber / Efiber of 5 and 10 have less change of curvature from the undeformed model, as compared with the isotropic model. Models with greater stiffness ratios, Eperp  fiber / Efiber of 15 and 20, show a change of curvature from the undeformed model of similar magnitude but different sign than the isotropic model. At greater meridional angles (>= 45°), the curvature of the deformed isotropic model converges to similar values to the undeformed shape. In contrast, curvature of the anisotropic models departs significantly from that of the undeformed model. Data in Figure 12B show that under a hydrostatic pressure gradient all anisotropic material properties of the deformed fibers have less change in curvature from the undeformed model than from the isotropic model.



Fig. 12. Principal curvature of homogenous isotropic and homogenous anisotropic muscle fibers as function of meridional angle in models subjected to either uniform pressure (A) like those in Fig. 4 or hydrostatic pressure (B) like those in Fig. 8. Undeformed shape has a constant curvature of 0.1. A meridional angle of zero indicates insertions on CW. A meridional angle of 90° indicates the extreme point at the dome. In the uniform-pressure case, curvature is shown for a meridional angle ranging from zero to 90° because model is symmetric around a meridional angle of 90°. In the hydrostatic pressure case, however, curvature is shown for the entire range of a meridional angle that ranges between -90 and 90°. A: under uniform pressure for meridional angles <= 45°, anisotropic models with stiffness ratios Eperp  fiber / Efiber of 5 and 10 limit change of curvature from the undeformed model compared with the isotropic model. Models with greater Eperp  fiber / Efiber ratios of 15 and 20 reduce curvature from the undeformed model compared with the isotropic model. At greater meridional angles (>= 45°), curvature of deformed isotropic model converges to values similar to those of the undeformed shape. In contrast, curvature of anisotropic models departs significantly from that of the undeformed model. B: under hydrostatic pressure gradient, except at the ventral region, all anisotropic models of deformed fibers appear to limit the change in curvature from the undeformed state compared with the isotropic model.
[View Larger Versions of these Images (18 + 17K GIF file)]


DISCUSSION

It is important to differentiate the mechanics of the diaphragm as a membranous structure from the mechanical properties of its three-dimensional muscle fiber-connective tissue composite structure. In mechanics, a membrane is a structure that is capable of carrying significant stresses in two dimensions; however, it is too thin to carry significant bending moments or shear stresses in the direction transverse to the plane of the membrane. Pressure load applied to the membrane can produce internal stresses. Basic membrane resistance forces are tension, compression, and shear in the plane of the membrane. When a region of the muscle is activated, equilibrium muscle length is determined by 1) the active length tension properties of the muscle, 2) the load against which the muscle is working, and 3) the degree to which the muscle is activated. The equilibrium length of the muscle at different levels of activation determines the final shape of the diaphragm. However, the displacement of the diaphragm having changes in muscle activation is determined by the equilibrium shape of the entire membrane under the varied load and by elastic material properties.

Experimental results of Gates et al. (7) showed that the passive diaphragmatic muscle of the dog in situ behaves as an anisotropic linearly elastic material for loads in the physiological range. Using the assumption of axisymmetry and incompressibility combined with the law of Laplace, Gates et al. computed the elastic moduli along the fiber and transverse to the fiber directions. They arrived at a surprisingly low orthotropic ratio of 1.6 (Eperp  fiber / Efiber = 1.6). Gathered by Strumf et al. (12), in vitro biaxial data of the passive diaphragmatic muscle of the dog demonstrated an anisotropic ratio of ~5 (Eperp  fiber / Efiber =  5). Our anisotropic model, having a stiffness ratio (Eperp  fiber / Efiber) of 5, exhibited, in response to pressure, the greatest limitation of shape change when compared with models of higher stiffness ratios. Our data suggest that a moderate value of the stiffness ratio is sufficient to limit shape change in response to a pressure.

Loring and Mead (8) conceptualized the diaphragm as a cylindrical zone of apposition (Zap) capped by a lung-apposed dome. On the basis of this geometry, they believed that Pdi in the Zap should be small because curvature along a fiber would be expected to be greater in the dome than in the Zap. Their analysis did not consider curvature in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers. However, our previous study (1) showed that curvature in the direction transverse to the fibers was negligible. Furthermore, no abrupt change of curvature was apparent along the muscle fibers at the point where the diaphragm peels away from the rib cage at the top of Zap. The curvature was approximately uniform along the muscle fibers and about the same at all lung volumes. By shortening and rotating in their plane of maximum curvature around the chest wall insertion, muscle fibers displace volume without a resultant change in curvature.

Results of these numerical experiments show the effects of anisotropic material properties on the curvature of the diaphragm in the direction of muscle fibers when subjected to either uniform or hydrostatic pressure gradient. The diaphragm is treated as a hemispherical membraneous structure, and the muscle fibers have the same curvature and lie along the meridional lines. In the present study, we hypothesized that the increase in transverse stiffness of muscle fibers and the inextensibility of the central tendon provide a mechanism by which diaphragm curvature could be similar irrespective of pressure distribution. Our finite-element models of the diaphragm were built to test this hypothesis.

We now consider an alternative mechanism by which it is conceivable that curvature could remain constant during active and passive ventilation. This mechanism assumes that Pdi is proportional to tension in the diaphragm (Tdi) at the upper margin of the Zap. If the upper margin of the Zap is approximately planar, the resultant force of Pdi on the lung-apposed region of the diaphragm is the product of Pdi and the area of the enclosed plane. This force is balanced by the component of membrane tension perpendicular to the plane times the circumference of the enclosed plane. During tidal breathing, neither the circumference nor the projected area change considerably compared with the changes of Pdi and Tdi. Therefore, the dome of the diaphragm could have a constant curvature during active and passive shortening because the ratio of Pdi to tension could remain constant.

If one considers the diaphragm as a homogeneous isotropic elastic membrane stretched by uniform tension, then a change of tension should cause uniform strain away from the chest wall insertions. When Pdi decreases during passive inflation, away from the chest wall insertions, the membrane should contract uniformly, and principal strains in the plane of the diaphragm should be the same. However, our recent work (3) showed that during both passive and active inflation the in-plane principal strain in the transverse direction to the muscle fibers was substantially smaller than the in-plane principal strain along the fiber direction. Excluding the unlikely possibility that transverse stress decreases during active muscle contraction and remains constant during passive shortening, these data suggest that the diaphragm muscle is an anisotropic structure. Stiffness in the transverse direction to the muscle fibers may be greater than the stiffness in the direction along the fibers. More recently (11), we found that, during efforts against occluded airways, the strains in the direction transverse to the fibers are small. Therefore, the diaphragm may be essentially inextensible in that direction. We argued that the relative inextensibility of the diaphragm in the direction transverse to the muscle fibers is advantageous teleologically (3). As the muscle contracts and Pdi and stress in the diaphragm increase, the resultant extension in the perpendicular direction would reduce the volume displacement of the diaphragm, and part of the pressure volume work of the muscle contraction would be expended on the elastic extension in the perpendicular direction.

Previous anatomic measurements of the excised diaphragmatic muscle of the dog demonstrated that the ratio of the surface area of the central tendon to the total area of the diaphragm was 0.2 ± 0.025. However, these measurements were not corrected for the areas where the vena cava traverses the central tendon or where the esophagus and aorta traverse the crural diaphragm. In our models, the sizes of the caps simulating the central tendon cover a range that includes the anatomic measurements (20-66%).

Hydrostatic pressure gradient produced a maximum pressure difference that is equal to Pmean; in a supine dog, with a diaphragm height of 16 cm, there is a difference between abdominal pressure and pleural pressure. Thus, if a gradient of 0.5 cmH2O/cm height is assumed, a gradient of Pdi from 0.5 to 1.5 Pmean should correspond to 8 cmH2O at mid height. This is in the range measured by Margulies and associates (9) in supine dogs having fluid in the abdomen, which could have increased the Pdi slightly.

Results in Figs. 4, 6, 8, and 10 demonstrate that the increased stiffness in the transverse direction to the muscle fibers limits the shape change of the membrane near the insertions on the chest wall. Additionally, these figures demonstrate that the presence of an essentially inextensible cap simulating the central tendon causes the membrane to have essentially the same shape under uniform pressure (Fig. 6) or hydrostatic pressure gradient (Fig. 10). It is clear from Fig. 8 that volume swept by hydrostatic pressure is greater than that swept by uniform pressure. However, the isotropic model would allow the diaphragm to splay back in the region above the chest wall insertion, whereas in vivo there would be restriction by the chest wall. Splaying back is only pronounced in the gravitationally dependent region of the hydrostatic pressure-gradient model.

As compared with isotropic models, the uniformly pressurized anisotropic models with stiffness ratio of 5 and 10 demonstrated a limitation of shape change from the undeformed shape, as demonstrated in Fig. 12A. Higher stiffness ratio, however, showed reduction of curvature as compared with the isotropic model. In contrast, all hydrostatically pressurized anisotropic models demonstrated a smaller shape change from the undeformed shape compared with the isotropic model as shown in Fig. 12B. These curvature data clearly show that changes of diaphragm model shape are restricted because of the membraneous anisotropic material properties.

We previously demonstrated that in the dog markers along a muscle fiber at FRC can be fitted to a circular arc and to an arc having the same radius, but having its center shifted and its arc length reduced fitted the physiological data at total lung capacity (TLC) well (3). Displacement trajectories that would carry points from the longer arc (at FRC) to the shorter arc (at TLC) were nearly parallel lines. These trajectories are similar to those generated by the displacement of the points on an anisotropic muscle fiber in that these trajectories are parallel lines. The anisotropic model having transverse inextensibility is, therefore, consistent with the major features of the physiological data on curvature, strain, and displacement of the diaphragm.

Our finding that moderate increase in transverse stiffness dramatically limits the shape changes of the diaphragm model may contribute to the remarkable similarities of diaphragm shapes at FRC, end inspiration, and TLC. The change in shape of the diaphragm in response to tensile stresses produced by the pressure is restricted even more when the central tendon is inextensible and the muscle is anisotropic, having a greater stiffness in the transverse direction to the muscle fibers than the stiffness in the direction along the fibers. Our model, therefore, provides a potential mechanism for the constant curvature along the diaphragmatic muscle fibers in vivo.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Drs. Theodore Wilson, John Akin, and Michael Reid for discussions about the data and the manuscript. The authors are grateful to Q. Lin, Y. Rui, and A. M. Doneski for their technical assistance.


FOOTNOTES

   This work was supported by a grant from the Whitaker Foundation and by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grants HL-46230 and R29-HL-54198.

Address for reprint requests: A. M. Boriek, Pulmonary Section, Suite 520B, Dept. of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030.

Received 11 August 1995; accepted in final form 2 January 1997.


APPENDIX

Generally, a largely deformed state of elastic body cannot be analytically solved because of the nonlinear relation between strain and displacement. Thus the continuous diaphragm model was practically treated as a finite element model in this study. We used nonlinear isoparametric (5) membrane elements in the ANSYS software (SHELL41) to generate the finite-element model of the diaphragm. Each element has three nodes. The planar edge of the model simulates the insertion of the diaphragm on the chest wall. Therefore, the nodal points that lie at the planar edge of the models were restrained to zero translational displacements.

In models where the internal pressure (abdominal pressure) was assumed to be uniform, the pressure was applied as an axisymmetrical load. In models where hydrostatic pressure gradient was assumed, pressure was applied as a nonaxisymmetrical load. In the uniform-pressure models, lines of symmetry coincided with two meridional lines (muscle fiber directions) at 90° to each other. In the nonuniform-pressure models, the line of symmetry coincided with a muscle fiber that spans 180° and lies in ventral dorsal plane. Appropriate displacement constraints along the line of symmetry were applied. Nodal points on the symmetry line were restricted from displacement in the direction perpendicular to the meridional line in the plane of the membrane. No rotation constraints were applied because the membrane element SHELL41 has only translational degrees of freedom.

The finite element used in this analysis was a three-dimensional element having membrane (in-plane) stiffness but no bending (out-of-plane) stiffness. Each element has three degrees of freedom at each node, corresponding to translations in the X Y, and Z directions. The displacements at the three corner nodes comprise a total of nine global degrees of freedom with respect to the global rectangular coordinate system xi. The element geometry is completely described in terms of the global coordinates xni for n = 1-3 and i = 1-3 of the three points.

In our analysis, anisotropic material directions corresponded to the element coordinate directions. The element coordinate system was rotated to be along the fiber direction and in the direction transverse to the fibers. We assumed large deflection, which is treated in ANSYS as a nonlinear problem. Faster convergence was obtained by breaking the load step into multiple smaller steps, each having several iterations. A triangle element was formed by defining duplicate K and L node numbers. Triangular shape is required for large deflection analysis because four-node elements may warp during deflection (10). Out-of-plane deflection within the element was allowed. This deflection may cause an instability in the displacement solution. To counteract this instability, a slight normal stiffness was added to the element (stress stiffening). The stress stiffening (also called geometric stiffening, incremental stiffening, initial stress stiffening, or differential stiffening) is the stiffening of a structure caused by its stressed state. Physically, it represents coupling between the in-plane and transverse deflections within the membrane. This coupling is the mechanism used by a thin membrane to carry lateral loads. As in-plane tensile stresses increase, the capacity of the system to carry lateral loads also increases (5).


REFERENCES

1. Boriek, A. M., S. Lui, and J. R. Rodarte. Costal diaphragm curvature in the dog. J. Appl. Physiol. 75: 527-533, 1993 . [Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Boriek, A. M., and J. R. Rodarte. Inferences on passive diaphragm mechanics from gross anatomy. J. Appl. Physiol. 75: 2065-2070, 1994.
3. Boriek, A. M., T. A. Wilson, and J. R. Rodarte. Displacement and strain in the costal diaphragm of the dog. J. Appl. Physiol 76: 223-229, 1994 . [Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. DeSalvo, G. J., and R. W. Gorman. ANSYS Engineering Analysis System User's Manual for Revision 4.3. Houston, PA: Swanson Analysis Systems, 1987.
5. Dietrich, D., and A. Levy. FEM modeling and preprocessing. In: Finite Element Handbook, edited by H. Kardestuncer. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987, p. 4.168.
6. Farlin, G. Curves and Surfaces for Computer-Aided Geometric Design. New York: Academic, 1993.
7. Gates, F., D. McCammond, W. Zingg, and H. Kunov. In vivo stiffness properties of the canine diaphragm muscle. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 18: 625-632, 1980 [Medline] .
8. Loring, S. H., and J. Mead. Action of the diaphragm on the rib cage inferred from a force balance analysis. J. Appl. Physiol. 53: 756-760, 1982. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Margulies, S. S., G. T. Lei, G. A. Farkas, and J. R. Rodarte. Finite-element analysis of stress in the canine diaphragm. J. Appl. Physiol. 76: 2070-2075, 1994 [Abstract/Free Full Text] .
10. Oden, J. T., and T. Sato. Finite strains and displacements of elastic membranes by the finite element methods. Int. J. Solids Structures 3: 471-488, 1967.
11. Rodarte, J. R., T. A. Wilson, and A. M. Boriek. Preferential muscle shortening and transverse inextensibility of costal diaphragm in the dog during maximal inspiratory efforts (Abstract). FASEB J. 8: A689, 1994.
12. Strumpf, R. K., J. D. Harvey, and F. C. P. Yin. Biaxial mechanical properties of passive and tetanized canine diaphragm. Am. J. Physiol. 265 (Heart Circ. Physiol. 34): H469-H475, 1993 [Abstract/Free Full Text] .
13. Tauchert, T. Energy Principles in Structural Mechanics, edited by B. J. Clark, and M. E. Margolies. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
14. Whitelaw, W. A., L. E. Hajdo, and J. A. Wallace. Relationship among pressure, tension, and shape of the diaphragm. J. Appl. Physiol. 55: 1899-1905, 1983. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

0161-7567/97 $5.00 Copyright © 1997 the American Physiological Society



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
W. Hwang, N. G. Kelly, and A. M. Boriek
Passive mechanics of muscle tendinous junction of canine diaphragm
J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2005; 98(4): 1328 - 1333.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
A. M. Boriek, W. Hwang, L. Trinh, and J. R Rodarte
Shape and tension distribution of the active canine diaphragm
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, April 1, 2005; 288(4): R1021 - R1027.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
M. R. Amancharla, J. R. Rodarte, and A. M. Boriek
Modeling the kinematics of the canine midcostal diaphragm
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, February 1, 2001; 280(2): R588 - R597.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boriek, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rodarte, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boriek, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rodarte, J. R.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online