. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Apr 3.

Published in final edited form as: Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2008 Nov 2;8(5):345–358. doi: 10.1007/s10237-008-0139-9

Table 3.

Young’s modulus (mean ± st. dev.) of PVA gels from two methods and various models

Model	Macro. compression^a		AFM indentation^b
	E₀ (kPa)	Mean r²	E₀ (kPa)	Mean r²
Hookean/Hertzian/(Hz)	–	–	24.13 ± 3.56	0.9926
Small strain Hookean/Hertzian (sHz)^c	20.49 ± 2.67	0.9846	21.36 ± 3.61	0.9978
Neo-Hookean (NH)	20.74 ± 0.76	0.9994	21.92 ± 2.88	0.9967
Moone-Rivlin (MR)	20.26 ± 1.00	0.9997	20.96 ± 2.75	0.9975
			18.23 ± 2.38^d	–
2-term reduced polynomial (2p)	20.30 ± 0.90	0.9998	18.05 ± 4.84	0.9997
Fung (Fu)	20.31 ± 0.90	0.9998	18.63 ± 4.49	0.9997
Ogden (Og)	19.85 ± 1.23	0.9998	22.95 ± 4.23	0.9997
van der Waals (vdW) ^e	20.12 ± 1.12	0.9998	21.32 ± 2.85	0.9974
Gaylord–Douglas (GD)	19.77 ± 1.30	0.9998	21.69 ± 2.82	0.9969
Tschoegl–Gurer (TG)	19.86 ± 1.21	0.9998	21.54 ± 2.80	0.9971

Macroscopic compression: 3 samples, 3 loading cycles/sample

AFM indentation: 3 samples, 256 indentations/sample

Data limited to strains trains < 0.05

Values using Eq. (5), applied to two samples (Lin et al. 2007b)

Limiting tensile strain of ε_m = 4 was as used