Figure 3 shows the results of model validation. Simulation of corneal inflation showed that when the posterior corneal surface was pressurized, the displacement of a point midway from the corneal apex to the limbus was 92% of the corneal apex displacement (
Fig. 3a). Because very low pressures are not physiological,
28 we measured our displacements with 3 KPa (22 mm Hg) as the reference point. The results, shown in
Figure 3a, compare favorably with Figure 9 of Boyce et al.
28 When the limbus was modeled as isotropic, the ratio of the midperiphery to apex displacement changed dramatically (
Fig. 3b). When the limbus was made stiff (E = E
cornea, E = E
sclera, or E = E
fibers), the predicted displacement in the midperiphery dropped considerably. In the stiffest case (E = E
fibers), the displacement of the midperipheral point was less than 40% of the apex displacement. In contrast, when the limbus was modeled as a compliant isotropic material (E = E
matrix), the midperipheral point moved as much as 95% of the apex.
Figure 3c shows the changes in the radius of curvature of the cornea and the sclera when the whole globe was pressurized. Consistent with published experimental data (
Fig. 3 of Pierscionek et al.
26 ), the corneal radius of curvature did not change dramatically, but the scleral radius of curvature changed by approximately 2 mm when the pressure increased from 15 to 60 mm Hg.
Figure 3d shows the ratio of change in the corneal radius of curvature to change in the scleral radius of curvature when the pressures changed from 15 to 45 mm Hg. The ratio was very small for the experimental case (0.02), a result of the annular support from the limbus and the geometry of the porcine globe. The model with a stiff limbus (E = E
fibers) and the anisotropic-limbus model gave relatively small ratios (the stiff model actually predicted that the corneal curvature would
decrease), whereas the other models (E = E
cornea, E = E
sclera, or E = E
matrix) did not give reasonable predictions for the curvature change ratio.
In examining
Figures 3b and
3d together, we see that only an anisotropic mechanical model of the limbus can capture both the meridional compliance (
Fig. 3b) and the circumferential stiffness and resulting maintenance of corneal curvature (
Fig. 3d). Thus, the anisotropic model was used for all simulations.