Figure 7

(A) The relative difference of computational Cauchy stresses from the two-layer model with the 2D (ref.¹⁷) or 3D (Eq. 1) active strain energy function in the IM layer as well as the same 3D passive strain energy function in the entire vessel wall (i.e., \(|\frac{{\sigma }_{\theta }^{3D}-{\sigma }_{\theta }^{2D}}{{\sigma }_{\theta }^{3D}}|\) and \(|\frac{{\sigma }_{r}^{3D}-{\sigma }_{r}^{2D}}{{\sigma }_{r}^{3D}}|\) at the interface between media and adventitia layers) as a function of transmural pressures at \({\lambda }_{z}\) of 1.3. The entire vessel wall thickness (the thickness of IM layer equal to h/2 in correspondence with Fig. 5) changes with the transmural pressure to maintain the averaged circumferential Cauchy stress over the entire wall thickness given the uniform circumferential stress hypothesis; (B) The relative difference of computational Cauchy stresses from the two-layer model with the 2D (ref.¹⁷) or 3D (Eq. 1) active strain energy function in the IM layer as well as the same 3D passive strain energy function in the entire vessel wall (i.e., \(|\frac{{\sigma }_{\theta }^{3D}-{\sigma }_{\theta }^{2D}}{{\sigma }_{\theta }^{3D}}|\) and \(|\frac{{\sigma }_{r}^{3D}-{\sigma }_{r}^{2D}}{{\sigma }_{r}^{3D}}|\) at the interface between media and adventitia layers) as the thickness of IM layer varies from h/2 to 4h/5 corresponding to Fig. 6.