Key result
Non-Newtonian blood models alter WSS estimates by up to ~33% versus standard Newtonian assumptions.
Why the study?
It was unclear whether turbulent flow solutions and non-Newtonian blood rheology assumptions are necessary when modeling thoracic aortic hemodynamics.
In computational fluid dynamics modeling of the normal aortic arch, laminar flow solutions may be sufficient instead of turbulent models, but non-Newtonian blood effects should be considered for accurate hemodynamic assessment.
Non-Newtonian effects merit inclusion in aortic arch CFD; animal data leaves open human clinical translation.
The studies on vascular flows have increased in the last decade. In this work; we have focused on the effects of flow model and blood rheology on hemodynamics for a real-subject scan using Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) during numerical solutions. Various vascular flow studies using Newtonian or non-Newtonian blood models were presented in the literature with laminar or turbulent flow assumptions. In this study; six different turbulent models (Realizable k-[Formula: see text], Standard k-[Formula: see text], SST k-[Formula: see text], Standard k-[Formula: see text], Transition k-kl-[Formula: see text], Transition SST) were compared to laminar flow to show whether turbulent flow solution is necessary. Blood rheology was investigated by using five different non-Newtonian models (Carreau, Herschel–Bulkley, Carreau–Yasuda, Casson, Power-Law) in addition to Newtonian model to indicate whether non-Newtonian blood assumptions is necessary. The In vivo boundary conditions were utilized by the UDF code which defines the real-patient cardiac cycle obtained by Echocardiography (ECHO) to present hemodynamics in the study. The results show that laminar flow well matched with the four turbulent models and two models shows by 4.8% and 19.5% differences in Wall Shear Stress (WSS) according to laminar flow. When the blood rheology was investigated, results revealed significant differences in WSS by 25.7%, 8.7%, 22.4%, 12.3%, and 32.5% for the non-Newtonian models in the given order, respectively, compared to Newtonian assumption. It concluded that laminar flow solution could be effective instead of solving turbulent flows in terms of computational cost, however, non-Newtonian blood effects could be considered to determine critical hemodynamics levels in a normal aortic arc.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Canbolat et al. (2023) studied Normal aortic arc (n=1). Non-Newtonian blood models and turbulent flow models vs. Newtonian blood model and laminar flow was evaluated on Wall Shear Stress (WSS). Non-Newtonian blood models resulted in significant differences in Wall Shear Stress (up to 32.5%) compared to the Newtonian assumption, whereas laminar flow matched well with most turbulent models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: