![]() However, the solutions are qualitatively similar beyond 1.75 D, where D is the inlet diameter. The results show axial and in-plane velocities are considerably different close to the inlet for the cases with different inlet velocity profile shapes. In these simulations, only the outlet boundary condition was varied. In addition, we examined the differences between two-element Windkessel, three element Windkessel and the outflow boundary conditions. Secondary flow in the form of a counter-rotating pair of vortices was also added to parabolic axial flow to study its effect on the solution. Only the shape of the inlet velocity profile was varied-all other parameters were identical among these simulations. We examined the differences between plug flow, parabolic flow, linear shear flows, skewed cubic flow profiles, and Womersley flow at the inlet. Our work begins to address this question by examining the sensitivity of flow to several different assumed velocity inlet and outlet conditions in a patient-specific aorta model. It is critical to determine the amount of uncertainty introduced by these assumptions in order to evaluate the degree to which cardiovascular flow simulations are accurate. Computational modeling of cardiovascular flow is a growing and useful field, but such simulations usually require the researcher to guess the flow’s inlet and outlet conditions since they are difficult and expensive to measure. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |