4.5 Article

Direct numerical simulation of transitional flow in a stenosed carotid bifurcation

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 41, 期 11, 页码 2551-2561

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.03.038

关键词

carotid artery bifurcation; stenosis; spectral element method; hemodynamics; turbulence; wall shear stress

资金

  1. Whitaker Foundation [RG-01-0198]
  2. National Institutes of Health, RO1 [2RO1HL55296-04A2]
  3. US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. NSF Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
  5. Computational Science Graduate Fellowship, Office of Science, US Department of Energy
  6. University of Illinois at Chicago Graduate Fellowship
  7. Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The blood flow dynamics of it stenosed, subject-specific, carotid bifurcation were numerically simulated using the spectral element method. Pulsatile inlet conditions were based on in vivo color Doppler ultrasound measurements of blood velocity. The results demonstrated the transitional or weakly turbulent state of the blood flow, which featured rapid velocity and pressure fluctuations in the post-stenotic region of the internal carotid artery (ICA) during systole and laminar flow during diastole. High-frequency vortex shedding was greatest downstream of the stenosis during the deceleration phase of systole. Velocity fluctuations had it frequency Within the audible range of 100-300 Hz. Instantaneous wall shear stress (WSS) within the stenosis was relatively high during systole (similar to 25-45 Pa) compared to that in it healthy carotid. In addition, high spatial gradients of WSS were present due to flow separation on the inner wall. oscillatory flow reversal and low pressure were observed distal to the stenosis in the ICA. This study predicts the complex flow field, the turbulence levels and the distribution of the biomechanical stresses present in vivo within a stenosed carotid artery. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据