Computational Mechanics

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 95–106 | Cite as

Coupled FEM and BEM code for simulating acoustically excited bubbles near deformable structures

Original Paper

Abstract

An understanding of biotissue–bubble interactions and the stresses induced in the tissue is needed to identify potential mechanisms of tissue damage, such as vessel rupture, by acoustically excited bubbles. Interactions between acoustically excited bubbles and nearby rigid structures have been studied effectively using the boundary element method. However, if the nearby structure is a biotissue, structure deformations will affect the bubble response. In this paper a coupled finite element and boundary element code, developed to investigate the interactions between an acoustically excited bubble and a deformable structure, is presented. In particular, this model was developed to investigate the response of bubbles within deformable tubes. This code is validated by comparison to other simulation and experimental results and employed to obtain the response of an acoustically excited bubble centered within a tube. General characteristics of bubble–tube interactions and stresses induced in the tube wall are described by considering typical simulation results.

Keywords

Boundary element method Finite element method Fluid–structure interaction Aspherical bubble response Vessel rupture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1974) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amini S, Harris PJ, Wilton DT (1992) Coupled boundary and finite element methods for the solution of the dynamic fluid–structure interaction problem. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson DG (1965) Gaussian quadrature formulae for \({\int_{0}^{1} - {\rm ln} (x )f(x)dx}\). Math Comput 19(91): 477–481MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bathe KJ (1982) Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blake Jr, Taib BB, Doherty G (1986) Transient cavities near boundaries. Part 1. Rigid boundary. J Fluid Mech 170: 479–497MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blake Jr, Taib BB, Doherty G (1987) Transient cavities near boundaries. Part I1. Free surface. J Fluid Mech 181: 197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brebbia CA (ed.) (1984) Boundary element techniques in computer-aided engineering. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brujan EA, Nahen K, Schmidt P, Vogel A (2001) Dynamics of laser-induced cavitation bubbles near an elastic boundary. J Fluid Mech 433: 251–281MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brujan EA, Nahen K, Schmidt P, Vogel A (2001) Dynamics of laser-induced cavitation bubbles near elastic boundaries: influence of the elastic modulus. J Fluid Mech 433: 283–314MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brujan EA (2004) The role of cavitation microjets in the therapeutic applications of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 30: 381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chahine GL, Kalumuck KM (1998) BEM software for free surface flow simulation including fluid–structure interaction effects. Int J Comp Appl Tech 11: 177–198Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen WS, Brayman AA, Matula TJ, Crum LA, Miller MW (2003) The pulse length-dependence of inertial cavitation dose and hemolysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 29: 739–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ, Cox C, Francis CW, Meltzer RS, Carstensen EL (1997) Hemolysis in vivo from exposure to pulsed ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 23: 307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duck FA (1990) Physical properties of tissue. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duncan JH, Zhang S (1991) On the interaction of a collapsing cavity and a compliant wall. J Fluid Mech 226: 401–423MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duncan JH, Milligan CD, Zhang S (1996) On the interaction between a bubble and a submerged compliant structure. J Sound Vibration 197(1): 17–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fong SW, Klaseboer E, Turangan CK, Khoo BC, Hung KC (2006) Numerical analysis of a gas bubble near bio-materials in an ultrasound field. Ultrasound Med Biol 32(6): 925–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gilmore FR (1952) Hydrodynamics Laboratory report 26-4, California Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris PJ (1993) A numerical method for determining the motion of a bubble close to a fixed rigid structure in a fluid. Int J Numer Methods Eng 33: 1813–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartland S (2004) Surface and interfacial tension: measurement, theory, and applications. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaswon MA, Symm GT (1977) Integral equation methods in potential theory and elastotatics. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jeffrey A (1995) Handbook of mathematical formulas and integrals. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kalumuck KM, Duraiswami R, Chahine GL (1995) Bubble dynamics fluid–structure interaction simulation by coupling fluid BEM and structural FEM codes. J Fluids Struct 9: 861–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klaseboer E, Hung KC, Wang C, Wang CW, Khoo BC, Boyce P, Debono S, Charlier H (2005) Experimental and numerical investigation of the dynamics of an underwater explosion bubble near a resilient/rigid structure. J Fluid Mech 537: 387–413MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lennon GP, Liu PLF, Liggett JA (1979) Boundary integral equation solution to axisymmetric potential flows I. Basic formulation. Water Resour Res 15(5): 1102–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li P, Cao T, Cou C, Armstrong WF, Miller D (2003) Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: an in vivo dose response study of delivery mode, pressure amplitude, and contrast dose. Ultrasound Med Biol 29(9): 1341–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li P, Armstrong WF, Miller DL (2004) Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: comparison of three different contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 30(1): 83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Longuet-Higgins MS, Cokelet ED (1976) The deformation of steep surface waves on water. I A numerical method of computation. Proc Roy Soc Lond A 350: 1–26MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Melbin J, Noordergraaf A (1971) Elastic deformation in orthotropic vessels Theoretical and experimental results. Circ Res XXVIII: 680–692Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miao H (2006) Numerical study of ultrasound bioeffects by solving gas–liquid–solid interaction problems with coupled FEM and BEM. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller DL, Gies RA (1998) Gas–body-based contrast agent enhances vascular bioeffects of 1.09 MHz ultrasound on mouse intestine. Ultrasound Med Biol 24: 1201–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller DL, Gies RA (2000) The influence of ultrasound frequency and gas–body composition on the contrast agent-mediated enhancement of vascular bioeffect in mouse intestine. Ultrasound Med Biol 26: 307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miller DL, Quddus J (2000) Diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies induces capillary rupture in mice. Proc Nat Acad Sci 97: 10179–10184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller DL, Thomas RM (1993) Contrast agent gas bodies enhance hemolysis induced by lithotripter shockwaves and high-intensity focused ultrasound in whole blood. Ultrasound Med Biol 22: 1089–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Noltingk BE, Neppiras EA (1950) Cavitation produced by ultrasonics. Proc Phys Cos Lond B 63: 674–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    O‘Rourke J (2001) Computational geometry in C. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Plesset MS (1949) The dynamics of cavitation bubbles. J Appl Mech ASME Trans 16: 277–282Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prosperetti A (1991) The thermal behavior of oscillating gas bubble. J Fluid Mech 22: 587–616CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rayleigh Lord (1917) On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity. Philos Mag 34: 94–98Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rowe AJ, Finlay HM, Canham PB (2003) Collagen biomechanics in cerebral arteries and bifurcations assessed by polarizing microscopy. J Vasc Res 40: 406–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sato K, Tomita Y, Shima A (1994) Numerical analysis of a gas bubble near a rigid boundary in an oscillatory pressure field. J Acoust Soc Am 95: 2416–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Snowhill P, Frederick S (2005) A mechanical model of porcine vascular tissues. Part II: Stress–strain and mechanical properties of juvenile porcine blood vessels. Cardiovasc Eng Int J 5(4): 157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tomita Y, Robinson PB, Tong RP, Blake JR (2002) Growth and collapse of cavitation bubbles near a curved rigid boundary. J Fluid Mech 466: 259–283MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Utku S (1968) Explicit expressions for triangular torus element stiffness matrix. J Am Inst Aeronaut Astron 6(6): 1174–1176Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang QX, Yeo KS, Khoo BC, Lam KY (1996) Nonlinear interaction between gas bubble and free surface. Comput Fluids 25(7): 607–628MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang XC, Shao M (2002) Basic principle of finite element method and numerical method, 2nd edn in Chinese. Tsinghau University Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang C, Khoo BC, Yeo KS (2003) Elastic mesh technique for 3D BIM simulation with an application to underwater explosion bubble dynamics. Comput Fluids 32: 1195–1212MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang C, Khoo BC (2004) An indirect boundary element method for three-dimensional explosion bubbles. J Comput Phys 194(2): 451–480MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wible JH, Galen KP, Wojdyla JK, Hughes MS, Klibanov AL, Brandenburger GH (2002) Microbubbles induce renal hemorrhage when exposed to diagnostic ultrasound in anesthetized rats. Ultrasound Med Biol 28: 1535–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wu TW (ed) (2000) Boundary element acoustics. WIT Press, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yamada H (1970) Strength of Biological Materials. Williams& Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Young FR (1989) Cavitation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhong P, Zhou YF, Zhu SL (2001) Dynamics of bubble oscillation in constrained media and mechanisms of vessel rupture in SWL. Ultrasound Med Biol 27(1): 119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (2000) Finite element method, 5th edn, vol 1, the basis. Butterworth-Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering, 217 HopemanUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Rochester Center for Biomedical UltrasoundUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations