The Computational Fluid Dynamics Rupture Challenge 2013—Phase II: Variability of Hemodynamic Simulations in Two Intracranial Aneurysms

Author:

Berg Philipp1,Roloff Christoph1,Beuing Oliver2,Voss Samuel1,Sugiyama Shin-Ichiro3,Aristokleous Nicolas4,Anayiotos Andreas S.4,Ashton Neil5,Revell Alistair5,Bressloff Neil W.6,Brown Alistair G.7,Jae Chung Bong8,Cebral Juan R.8,Copelli Gabriele9,Fu Wenyu10,Qiao Aike10,Geers Arjan J.11,Hodis Simona1213,Dragomir-Daescu Dan1213,Nordahl Emily14,Bora Suzen Yildirim14,Owais Khan Muhammad15,Valen-Sendstad Kristian15,Kono Kenichi16,Menon Prahlad G.17,Albal Priti G.17,Mierka Otto18,Münster Raphael18,Morales Hernán G.19,Bonnefous Odile19,Osman Jan20,Goubergrits Leonid20,Pallares Jordi21,Cito Salvatore21,Passalacqua Alberto22,Piskin Senol23,Pekkan Kerem23,Ramalho Susana24,Marques Nelson24,Sanchi Stéphane25,Schumacher Kristopher R.26,Sturgeon Jess26,Švihlová Helena27,Hron Jaroslav27,Usera Gabriel28,Mendina Mariana28,Xiang Jianping29,Meng Hui29,Steinman David A.15,Janiga Gábor1

Affiliation:

1. University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39106, Germany

2. University Hospital of Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39120, Germany

3. Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan

4. Cyprus University of Technology, Lemesos 3036, Cyprus

5. The University of Manchester, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

6. University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

7. CD-Adapco, London W6 7NL, UK

8. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030

9. University of Parma, Parma 43125, Italy

10. Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China

11. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona 08002, Spain

12. Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX 78363;

13. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905

14. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102

15. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada

16. Wakayama Rosai Hospital, Wakayama 640-8505, Japan

17. Sun Yat-sen University—Carnegie Mellon University Joint Institute of Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA 15219

18. University of Dortmund, Dortmund 44227, Germany

19. Medisys—Philips Research, Paris 92156, France

20. Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin 13353, Germany

21. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona 43007, Spain

22. Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-2161

23. Koc University, Sariyer, Istanbul 34450, Turkey

24. blueCAPE Lda—CAE Solutions, Milharado 2665-305, Portugal

25. Préverenges 1028, Switzerland

26. MRIGlobal, Kansas City, MO 64110

27. Charles University, Prague 18675, Czech Republic

28. Universidad de la República, Montevideo 11300, Uruguay

29. University at Buffalo—State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14203

Abstract

With the increased availability of computational resources, the past decade has seen a rise in the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for medical applications. There has been an increase in the application of CFD to attempt to predict the rupture of intracranial aneurysms, however, while many hemodynamic parameters can be obtained from these computations, to date, no consistent methodology for the prediction of the rupture has been identified. One particular challenge to CFD is that many factors contribute to its accuracy; the mesh resolution and spatial/temporal discretization can alone contribute to a variation in accuracy. This failure to identify the importance of these factors and identify a methodology for the prediction of ruptures has limited the acceptance of CFD among physicians for rupture prediction. The International CFD Rupture Challenge 2013 seeks to comment on the sensitivity of these various CFD assumptions to predict the rupture by undertaking a comparison of the rupture and blood-flow predictions from a wide range of independent participants utilizing a range of CFD approaches. Twenty-six groups from 15 countries took part in the challenge. Participants were provided with surface models of two intracranial aneurysms and asked to carry out the corresponding hemodynamics simulations, free to choose their own mesh, solver, and temporal discretization. They were requested to submit velocity and pressure predictions along the centerline and on specified planes. The first phase of the challenge, described in a separate paper, was aimed at predicting which of the two aneurysms had previously ruptured and where the rupture site was located. The second phase, described in this paper, aims to assess the variability of the solutions and the sensitivity to the modeling assumptions. Participants were free to choose boundary conditions in the first phase, whereas they were prescribed in the second phase but all other CFD modeling parameters were not prescribed. In order to compare the computational results of one representative group with experimental results, steady-flow measurements using particle image velocimetry (PIV) were carried out in a silicone model of one of the provided aneurysms. Approximately 80% of the participating groups generated similar results. Both velocity and pressure computations were in good agreement with each other for cycle-averaged and peak-systolic predictions. Most apparent “outliers” (results that stand out of the collective) were observed to have underestimated velocity levels compared to the majority of solutions, but nevertheless identified comparable flow structures. In only two cases, the results deviate by over 35% from the mean solution of all the participants. Results of steady CFD simulations of the representative group and PIV experiments were in good agreement. The study demonstrated that while a range of numerical schemes, mesh resolution, and solvers was used, similar flow predictions were observed in the majority of cases. To further validate the computational results, it is suggested that time-dependent measurements should be conducted in the future. However, it is recognized that this study does not include the biological aspects of the aneurysm, which needs to be considered to be able to more precisely identify the specific rupture risk of an intracranial aneurysm.

Publisher

ASME International

Subject

Physiology (medical),Biomedical Engineering

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3