English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Computational modeling of cardiovascular flow is a growing and useful field, but such simulations usually require the researcher to guess the flow’s inlet and outlet conditions since they are difficult and expensive to measure. It is critical to determine the amount of uncertainty introduced by these assumptions in order to evaluate the degree to which cardiovascular flow simulations are accurate. Our work begins to address this question by examining the sensitivity of flow to several different assumed velocity inlet and outlet conditions in a patient-specific aorta model.    Methods  We examined the differences between plug flow, parabolic flow, linear shear flows, skewed cubic flow profiles, and Womersley flow at the inlet. Only the shape of the inlet velocity profile was varied—all other parameters were identical among these simulations. Secondary flow in the form of a counter-rotating pair of vortices was also added to parabolic axial flow to study its effect on the solution. In addition, we examined the differences between two-element Windkessel, three element Windkessel and the outflow boundary conditions. In these simulations, only the outlet boundary condition was varied.    Results  The results show axial and in-plane velocities are considerably different close to the inlet for the cases with different inlet velocity profile shapes. However, the solutions are qualitatively similar beyond 1.75 D , where  D  is the inlet diameter. This trend is also observed in other quantities such as pressure and wall shear stress. Normalized root-mean-square deviation, a measure of axial velocity magnitude differences between the different cases, generally decreases along the streamwise coordinate. The linear shear inlet velocity boundary condition and plug velocity boundary condition solution exhibit the highest time-averaged wall shear stress, approximately    \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} 				\usepackage{amsmath} 				\usepackage{wasysym}  				\usepackage{amsfonts}  				\usepackage{amssymb}  				\usepackage{amsbsy} 				\usepackage{mathrsfs} 				\usepackage{upgreek} 				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} 				\begin{document}$$8\%$$\end{document}    8  %higher than the parabolic inlet velocity boundary condition. Upstream of 1 D  from the inlet, adding secondary flow has a significant impact on temporal wall shear stress distributions. This is especially observable during diastole, when integrated wall shear stress magnitude varies about    \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} 				\usepackage{amsmath} 				\usepackage{wasysym}  				\usepackage{amsfonts}  				\usepackage{amssymb}  				\usepackage{amsbsy} 				\usepackage{mathrsfs} 				\usepackage{upgreek} 				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} 				\begin{document}$$26\%$$\end{document}    26  %between simulations with and without secondary flow. The results from the outlet boundary condition study show the Windkessel models differ from the outflow boundary condition by as much as    \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} 				\usepackage{amsmath} 				\usepackage{wasysym}  				\usepackage{amsfonts}  				\usepackage{amssymb}  				\usepackage{amsbsy} 				\usepackage{mathrsfs} 				\usepackage{upgreek} 				\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} 				\begin{document}$$18\%$$\end{document}    18  %in terms of time-averaged wall shear stress. Furthermore, normalized root-mean-square deviation of axial velocity magnitude, a measure of deviation between Windkessel and the outflow boundary condition, increases along the streamwise coordinate indicating larger variations near outlets.    Conclusion  It was found that the selection of inlet velocity conditions significantly affects only the flow region close to the inlet of the aorta. Beyond two diameters distal to the inlet, differences in flow solution are small. Although additional studies must be performed to verify this result, the data suggest that it is important to use patient-specific inlet conditions primarily if the researcher is concerned with the details of the flow very close to the inlet. Similarly, the selection of outlet conditions significantly affects the flow in the vicinity of the outlets. Upstream of five diameters proximal to the outlet, deviations between the outlet boundary conditions examined are insignificant. Although the inlet and outlet conditions only affect the flow significantly in their respective neighborhoods, our study indicates that outlet conditions influence a larger percentage of the solution domain.

The effect of inlet and outlet boundary conditions in image-based CFD modeling of aortic flow