4.3 Article

Numerical simulation of non-Newtonian models effect on hemodynamic factors of pulsatile blood flow in elastic stenosed artery

期刊

JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 1003-1013

出版社

KOREAN SOC MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-017-0153-x

关键词

Adina; Consecutive stenosis; Fluid-solid interaction; Hemodynamic; Reverse flow; Stenosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atherosclerosis develops due to different hemodynamic factors, among which time-averaged Wall shear stress (mean WSS) and Oscillatory shear index (OSI) are two of the most important. These two factors not only depend on flow geometry, but are also influenced by rheological characteristics of blood. Since analytical solutions are limited to simple problems and since experimental tests are costly and time consuming, CFD solutions been prominently and effectively used to solve such problems. We conducted a numerical study via ADINA 8.8 software on the non-Newtonian pulsatile flow of blood through an elastic blood artery with single and consecutive stenosis. The studied stenosis cross sectional area was 70 % that of the unstenosed artery. The single stenosis results were compared with the consecutive stenosis results. The five non-Newtonian flow models, the Carreau model, the Carreau-Yasuda model, the modified Casson model, the power-law model, and the generalized power-law model, were used to model the non-Newtonian blood flow. The obtained results showed that increasing the number of stenoses would lead to reduced length of the oscillatory area after the first stenosis, thus forming another oscillatory area with a larger length after the second stenosis. Thus, a consecutive stenosis would develop a larger disease prone area. Upon examining the mean WSS and OSI, we found that, as compared with the other models, the modified Casson model and the power-law model produced predictions for the most extent of damage to endothelial cells and the most disease prone areas, respectively.

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

4.3
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