Advertisement

Computational Mechanics

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 31–41 | Cite as

Wall shear stress calculations in space–time finite element computation of arterial fluid–structure interactions

  • Kenji Takizawa
  • Creighton Moorman
  • Samuel Wright
  • Jason Christopher
  • Tayfun E. Tezduyar
Original Paper

Abstract

The stabilized space–time fluid–structure interaction (SSTFSI) technique was applied to arterial FSI problems soon after its development by the Team for Advanced Flow Simulation and Modeling. The SSTFSI technique is based on the Deforming-Spatial-Domain/Stabilized Space–Time (DSD/SST) formulation and is supplemented with a number of special techniques developed for arterial FSI. The special techniques developed in the recent past include a recipe for pre-FSI computations that improve the convergence of the FSI computations, using an estimated zero-pressure arterial geometry, Sequentially Coupled Arterial FSI technique, using layers of refined fluid mechanics mesh near the arterial walls, and a special mapping technique for specifying the velocity profile at inflow boundaries with non-circular shape. In this paper we introduce some additional special techniques, related to the projection of fluid–structure interface stresses, calculation of the wall shear stress (WSS), and calculation of the oscillatory shear index. In the test computations reported here, we focus on WSS calculations in FSI modeling of a patient-specific middle cerebral artery segment with aneurysm. Two different structural mechanics meshes and three different fluid mechanics meshes are tested to investigate the influence of mesh refinement on the WSS calculations.

Keywords

Cardiovascular fluid mechanics Cerebral aneurysms Patient-specific data Fluid–structure interactions Hyperelastic material Space–time methods Wall shear stress Oscillatory shear index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2004) Influence of wall elasticity on image-based blood flow simulation. Jpn Soc Mech Eng J Ser A (in Japanese) 70: 1224–1231Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gerbeau J-F, Vidrascu M, Frey P (2005) Fluid–structure interaction in blood flow on geometries based on medical images. Comput Struct 83: 155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2006) Computer modeling of cardiovascular fluid–structure interactions with the deforming-spatial-domain/stabilized space–time formulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195: 1885–1895zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2006) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of aneurysmal conditions with high and normal blood pressures. Comput Mech 38: 482–490zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bazilevs Y, Calo VM, Zhang Y, Hughes TJR (2006) Isogeometric fluid–structure interaction analysis with applications to arterial blood flow. Comput Mech 38: 310–322zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2007) Influence of wall elasticity in patient-specific hemodynamic simulations. Comput Fluids 36: 160–168zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Cragin T, Nanna B, Conklin BS, Pausewang J, Schwaab M (2007) Modeling of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time finite elements: arterial fluid mechanics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 54: 901–922zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2007) Numerical investigation of the effect of hypertensive blood pressure on cerebral aneurysm—Dependence of the effect on the aneurysm shape. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 54: 995–1009zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Schwaab M, Conklin BS (2008) Arterial fluid mechanics modeling with the stabilized space–time fluid–structure interaction technique. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 57: 601–629zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bazilevs Y, Calo VM, Hughes TJR, Zhang Y (2008) Isogeometric fluid–structure interaction: theory, algorithms, and computations. Comput Mech 43: 3–37zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2008) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of a patient-specific cerebral aneurysm: Influence of structural modeling. Comput Mech 43: 151–159zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Isaksen JG, Bazilevs Y, Kvamsdal T, Zhang Y, Kaspersen JH, Waterloo K, Romner B, Ingebrigtsen T (2008) Determination of wall tension in cerebral artery aneurysms by numerical simulation. Stroke 39: 3172–3178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tezduyar TE, Schwaab M, Sathe S (2008) Sequentially-coupled arterial fluid–structure interaction (SCAFSI) technique. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, published online, doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2008.05.024, July
  14. 14.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2008) Fluid–structure interaction modeling of blood flow and cerebral aneurysm: Significance of artery and aneurysm shapes. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, published online, doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2008.08.020, July
  15. 15.
    Bazilevs Y, Gohean JR, Hughes TJR, Moser RD, Zhang Y (2009) Patient-specific isogeometric fluid–structure interaction analysis of thoracic aortic blood flow due to implantation of the Jarvik 2000 left ventricular assist device. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, published online, doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2009.04.015
  16. 16.
    Takizawa K, Christopher J, Tezduyar TE, Sathe S (2009) Space–time finite element computation of arterial fluid–structure interactions with patient-specific data. Commun Numer Methods Eng, published online, doi: 10.1002/cnm.1241, March
  17. 17.
    Tezduyar TE, Takizawa K, Christopher J (2009) Multiscale sequentially-coupled arterial fluid–structure interaction (SCAFSI) technique. In: Hartmann S, Meister A, Schaefer M, Turek S (eds) International workshop on fluid–structure interaction—theory, numerics and applications. Kassel University Press, KasselGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Torii R, Oshima M, Kobayashi T, Takagi K, Tezduyar TE (2009) Influence of wall thickness on fluid–structure interaction computations of cerebral aneurysms. Commun Numer Methods Eng, published online, doi: 10.1002/cnm.1289, July
  19. 19.
    Tezduyar T, Aliabadi S, Behr M, Johnson A, Mittal S (1993) Parallel finite-element computation of 3D flows. Computer 26: 27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tezduyar TE, Aliabadi SK, Behr M, Mittal S (1994) Massively parallel finite element simulation of compressible and incompressible flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 119: 157–177zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mittal S, Tezduyar TE (1994) Massively parallel finite element computation of incompressible flows involving fluid–body interactions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 112: 253–282zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mittal S, Tezduyar TE (1995) Parallel finite element simulation of 3D incompressible flows—Fluid-structure interactions. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 21: 933–953zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson AA, Tezduyar TE (1997) Parallel computation of incompressible flows with complex geometries. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 24: 1321–1340zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson AA, Tezduyar TE (1999) Advanced mesh generation and update methods for 3D flow simulations. Comput Mech 23: 130–143zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalro V, Tezduyar TE (2000) A parallel 3D computational method for fluid–structure interactions in parachute systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190: 321–332zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stein K, Benney R, Kalro V, Tezduyar TE, Leonard J, Accorsi M (2000) Parachute fluid–structure interactions: 3-D Computation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190: 373–386zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tezduyar T, Osawa Y (2001) Fluid–structure interactions of a parachute crossing the far wake of an aircraft. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191: 717–726zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ohayon R (2001) Reduced symmetric models for modal analysis of internal structural-acoustic and hydroelastic-sloshing systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190: 3009–3019zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stein K, Tezduyar T, Benney R (2003) Mesh moving techniques for fluid–structure interactions with large displacements. J Appl Mech 70: 58–63zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Keedy R, Stein K (2004) Space–time techniques for finite element computation of flows with moving boundaries and interfaces. In: Gallegos S, Herrera I, Botello S, Zarate F, Ayala G (eds) Proceedings of the III international congress on numerical methods in engineering and applied science, CD-ROM, Monterrey, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stein K, Tezduyar TE, Benney R (2004) Automatic mesh update with the solid-extension mesh moving technique. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193: 2019–2032zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Brummelen EH, de Borst R (2005) On the nonnormality of subiteration for a fluid–structure interaction problem. SIAM J Scientific Comput 27: 599–621zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Michler C, van Brummelen EH, de Borst R (2005) An interface Newton–Krylov solver for fluid–structure interaction. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 47: 1189–1195zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Keedy R, Stein K (2006) Space–time finite element techniques for computation of fluid–structure interactions. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195: 2002–2027zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Stein K (2006) Solution techniques for the fully-discretized equations in computation of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time formulations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195: 5743–5753zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Stein K, Aureli L (2006) Modeling of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time techniques. In: Bungartz H-J, Schafer M, (eds) Fluid–structure interaction. Lecture notes in computational science and engineering, vol 53. Springer, Berlin, pp 50–81Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dettmer W, Peric D (2006) A computational framework for fluid–structure interaction: finite element formulation and applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195: 5754–5779zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khurram RA, Masud A (2006) A multiscale/stabilized formulation of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations for moving boundary flows and fluid–structure interaction. Comput Mech 38: 403–416zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kuttler U, Forster C, Wall WA (2006) A solution for the incompressibility dilemma in partitioned fluid–structure interaction with pure Dirichlet fluid domains. Comput Mech 38: 417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lohner R, Cebral JR, Yang C, Baum JD, Mestreau EL, Soto O (2006) Extending the range of applicability of the loose coupling approach for FSI simulations. In: Bungartz H-J, Schafer M (eds) Fluid–structure interaction. Lecture notes in computational science and engineering, vol 53. Springer, Berlin, pp 82–100Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bletzinger K-U, Wuchner R, Kupzok A (2006) Algorithmic treatment of shells and free form-membranes in FSI. In: Bungartz H-J, Schafer M (eds) Fluid–structure interaction. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, vol 53. Springer, Berlin, pp 336–355Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Masud A, Bhanabhagvanwala M, Khurram RA (2007) An adaptive mesh rezoning scheme for moving boundary flows and fluid–structure interaction. Comput Fluids 36: 77–91zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sawada T, Hisada T (2007) Fuid–structure interaction analysis of the two dimensional flag-in-wind problem by an interface tracking ALE finite element method. Comput Fluids 36: 136–146zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wall WA, Genkinger S, Ramm E (2007) A strong coupling partitioned approach for fluid–structure interaction with free surfaces. Comput Fluids 36: 169–183zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S (2007) Modeling of fluid–structure interactions with the space–time finite elements: solution techniques. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 54: 855–900zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kuttler U, Wall WA (2008) Fixed-point fluid–structure interaction solvers with dynamic relaxation. Comput Mech 43: 61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dettmer WG, Peric D (2008) On the coupling between fluid flow and mesh motion in the modelling of fluid–structure interaction. Comput Mech 43: 81–90zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tezduyar TE (1992) Stabilized finite element formulations for incompressible flow computations. Adv Appl Mech 28: 1–44zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tezduyar TE, Behr M, Liou J (1992) A new strategy for finite element computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces—the deforming-spatial-domain/space–time procedure. I. The concept and the preliminary numerical tests. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 94: 339–351zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tezduyar TE, Behr M, Mittal S, Liou J (1992) A new strategy for finite element computations involving moving boundaries and interfaces—the deforming-spatial-domain/space–time procedure: II. Computation of free-surface flows, two-liquid flows, and flows with drifting cylinders. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 94: 353–371zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tezduyar TE (2003) Computation of moving boundaries and interfaces and stabilization parameters. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 43: 555–575zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hughes TJR, Brooks AN (1979) A multi-dimensional upwind scheme with no crosswind diffusion. In: Hughes TJR (ed) Finite element methods for convection dominated flows, AMD-vol 34. ASME, New York, pp 19–35Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Brooks AN, Hughes TJR (1982) Streamline upwind/Petrov–Galerkin formulations for convection dominated flows with particular emphasis on the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 32: 199–259zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tezduyar TE, Mittal S, Ray SE, Shih R (1992) Incompressible flow computations with stabilized bilinear and linear equal-order-interpolation velocity-pressure elements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 95: 221–242zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hughes TJR, Franca LP, Balestra M (1986) A new finite element formulation for computational fluid dynamics. V. Circumventing the Babuška–Brezzi condition: a stable Petrov–Galerkin formulation of the Stokes problem accommodating equal-order interpolations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 59: 85–99zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tezduyar TE, Behr M, Mittal S, Johnson AA (1992) Computation of unsteady incompressible flows with the finite element methods—space–time formulations, iterative strategies and massively parallel implementations. In: New methods in transient analysis, PVP-Vol 246/AMD-Vol 143. ASME, New York, pp 7–24Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Johnson AA, Tezduyar TE (1994) Mesh update strategies in parallel finite element computations of flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 119: 73–94zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tezduyar TE (2001) Finite element methods for flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces. Arch Comput Methods Eng 8: 83–130zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tezduyar TE (2004) Finite element methods for fluid dynamics with moving boundaries and interfaces. In: Stein E, De Borst R, Hughes TJR (eds) Encyclopedia of computational mechanics, vol 3: Fluids, Chap. 17. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tezduyar TE, Cragin T, Sathe S, Nanna B (2007) FSI computations in arterial fluid mechanics with estimated zero-pressure arterial geometry. In: Onate E, Garcia J, Bergan P, Kvamsdal T (eds) Marine 2007, CIMNE, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tezduyar TE, Schwaab M, Sathe S (2007) Arterial fluid mechanics with the sequentially-coupled arterial FSI technique. In: Onate E, Papadrakakis M, Schrefler B (eds) Coupled Problems 2007, CIMNE, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Saad Y, Schultz M (1986) GMRES: a generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J Scientific Stat Comput 7: 856–869zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tezduyar TE, Sathe S, Pausewang J, Schwaab M, Christopher J, Crabtree J (2008) Interface projection techniques for fluid–structure interaction modeling with moving-mesh methods. Comput Mech 43: 39–49zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Taylor CA, Hughes TJR, Zarins CK (1998) Finite element modeling of three-dimensional pulsatile flow in the abdominal aorta: relevance to atherosclerosis. Ann Biomed Eng 158: 975–987CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Green AE, Naghdi PM (1976) A derivation of equations for wave propagation in water of variable depth. J Fluid Mech 78: 237–246zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Huang H, Virmani R, Younis H, Burke AP, Kamm RD, Lee RT (2001) The impact of calcification on the biomechanical stability of atherosclerotic plaques. Circulation 103: 1051–1056Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Frank O (1899) Die grundform des arteriellen pulses. Zeitung fur Biologie 37: 483–586Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bazilevs Y, Hsu M-C, Benson D, Sankaran S, Marsden A (2009) Computational fluid–structure interaction: methods and application to a total cavopulmonary connection. Comput Mech (accepted)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenji Takizawa
    • 1
  • Creighton Moorman
    • 1
  • Samuel Wright
    • 1
  • Jason Christopher
    • 1
  • Tayfun E. Tezduyar
    • 1
  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringRice University-MS321HoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations