Fluid structure interaction versus rigid‐wall approach in the study of the symptomatic stenosed carotid artery: Importance of wall compliance and resilience of loose connective tissue

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. Patient‐specific geometry: (A) surface model obtained in the custom‐developed software Anatomical Model Reconstructor; (B–D) volumetric model retrieved in SolidWorks

• 

  FIGURE 2. Fluid domain with boundary conditions (end‐systolic phase) and monitoring points defined in ANSYS CFX Preprocessor

• 

  FIGURE 3. V max (in vivo measurements) and normal blood pressure 19 functions used to define boundary conditions, respectively, at the inlet and outlets

• 

  FIGURE 4. Longitudinal cross‐sections of mesh in fluid domain (1,860,627 finite volumes) and structural domain representing the wall (146,221 elements) generated in ANSYS

• 

  FIGURE 5. Zones specified on the outer surfaces of the fluid domain in Ansys Mesher

• 

  FIGURE 6. Comparison of parameters obtained at the monitoring points in steady‐state simulations at the peak‐systolic point for selected rheological models (rigid‐wall approach)

• 

  FIGURE 7. Comparison of time‐averaged parameters obtained at the monitoring points in transient simulations carried out with rigid‐wall and fluid structure interaction approaches for selected values of Young's modulus. E = 3 MPa, E = 1 MPa, and E = 0.5 MPa (FS = 0.1 N/mm3).

• 

  FIGURE 8. Changes of AAWSS obtained at the defined zones in transient simulations carried out with rigid‐wall and fluid structure interaction approaches for selected values of Young's modulus: E = 3 MPa, E = 1 MPa, and E = 0.5 MPa (FS = 0.1 N/mm3)

• 

  FIGURE 9. Comparison of time‐averaged AAWSS obtained at the defined zones in transient simulations carried out with rigid‐wall and fluid structure interaction approaches for selected values of Young's modulus. E = 3 MPa, E = 1 MPa, and E = 0.5 MPa (FS = 0.1 N/mm3)

• 

  FIGURE 10. Comparison of peak‐systolic deformation and stress determined in the structural domain in FSI simulations for selected values of Young's modulus: E = 3 MPa, E = 1 MPa, and E = 0.5 MPa (FS = 0.1 N/mm3).

• 

  FIGURE 11. Comparison of time‐averaged parameters obtained at the monitoring points in transient simulations carried out with rigid‐wall and fluid structure interaction approaches for selected values of foundation stiffness: FS = 0.2 N/mm3, FS = 0.1 N/mm3, FS = 0.05 N/mm3, and FS = 0 (E = 1 MPa)

• 

  FIGURE 12. Changes of AAWSS obtained at the defined zones in transient simulations carried out with rigid‐wall and fluid structure interaction approaches for selected values of foundation stiffness: FS = 0.2 N/mm3, FS = 0.1 N/mm3, FS = 0.05 N/mm3, and FS = 0 (E = 1 MPa)