In a computational model of a 45% stenosed vessel, wall compliance slightly lowered wall shear stress by less than 7.2% compared to a rigid model, but did not qualitatively change flow behaviors.
Computational modeling of a mildly stenosed tube demonstrated that wall compliance had small effects on flow and solid behaviors, slightly reducing wall shear stress compared to rigid models.
In the present computational analysis, pulsatile flow and vessel wall behaviour in a simplified model of a stenosed vessel were investigated. Geometry of a 45% axisymmetrically stenosed (by area) cylindrical tube and a sinusoidal inflow waveform were simulated, with the fluid being assumed to be incompressible and Newtonian. The vessel wall was treated as a thick-walled, incompressible and isotropic material with uniform mechanical properties across the normal as well as the constricted segment. The study of fluid flow and wall motion was initially carried out separately using two commercial codes CFX4.2 and ABAQUS7 respectively. Their combined effects and interactions were later investigated through an iteratively coupled algorithm. Model validations on the rigid-wall fluid and static no-flow solid models were satisfactory, with Root Mean Square deviations of around 7% in centreline axial velocity between the prediction and measurement values for the rigid wall stenosis model, and 5% in circumferential stress for a cylindrical tube model under static loading when compared with the analytical solution. Results on velocity profiles, wall shear stress, intramural strain and stress for the rigid and compliant cases were all presented. Comparison between the rigid and compliant models revealed that, the flow separation layer distal to the stenosis was thicker and longer, and wall shear stress was slightly lower in the compliant model by less than 7.2%. Results obtained from the static wall model (with uniform pressure loading) and coupled fluid/wall interaction modelling of pulsatile flow showed qualitatively similar wall strain and stress patterns but considerable differences in magnitude. The radial and axial stresses were reduced by 31 and 8%, while the circumferential stress was increased by 13% due to the presence of pulsatile flow. Under the flow and structural conditions investigated, the effects of wall compliance were small, and did not change the flow and solid behaviours qualitatively in this case.
Lee et al. (Fri,) conducted a other in Stenosed vessel. Compliant wall model vs. Rigid wall model was evaluated on Fluid flow and wall motion (velocity profiles, wall shear stress, intramural strain and stress). In a computational model of a 45% stenosed vessel, wall compliance slightly lowered wall shear stress by less than 7.2% compared to a rigid model, but did not qualitatively change flow behaviors.