Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamic Validation for Medical Use: Application to Intracranial AneurysmSource: Journal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2017:;volume( 139 ):;issue: 012::page 121004Author:Paliwal
,
Nikhil;Damiano
,
Robert J.;Varble
,
Nicole A.;Tutino
,
Vincent M.;Dou
,
Zhongwang;Siddiqui
,
Adnan H.;Meng
,
Hui
DOI: 10.1115/1.4037792Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a promising tool to aid in clinical diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases. However, it uses assumptions that simplify the complexities of the real cardiovascular flow. Due to high-stakes in the clinical setting, it is critical to calculate the effect of these assumptions in the CFD simulation results. However, existing CFD validation approaches do not quantify error in the simulation results due to the CFD solver’s modeling assumptions. Instead, they directly compare CFD simulation results against validation data. Thus, to quantify the accuracy of a CFD solver, we developed a validation methodology that calculates the CFD model error (arising from modeling assumptions). Our methodology identifies independent error sources in CFD and validation experiments, and calculates the model error by parsing out other sources of error inherent in simulation and experiments. To demonstrate the method, we simulated the flow field of a patient-specific intracranial aneurysm (IA) in the commercial CFD software star-ccm+. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) provided validation datasets for the flow field on two orthogonal planes. The average model error in the star-ccm+ solver was 5.63 ± 5.49% along the intersecting validation line of the orthogonal planes. Furthermore, we demonstrated that our validation method is superior to existing validation approaches by applying three representative existing validation techniques to our CFD and experimental dataset, and comparing the validation results. Our validation methodology offers a streamlined workflow to extract the “true” accuracy of a CFD solver.
|
Collections
Show full item record
contributor author | Paliwal | |
contributor author | Nikhil;Damiano | |
contributor author | Robert J.;Varble | |
contributor author | Nicole A.;Tutino | |
contributor author | Vincent M.;Dou | |
contributor author | Zhongwang;Siddiqui | |
contributor author | Adnan H.;Meng | |
contributor author | Hui | |
date accessioned | 2017-12-30T11:43:55Z | |
date available | 2017-12-30T11:43:55Z | |
date copyright | 9/28/2017 12:00:00 AM | |
date issued | 2017 | |
identifier issn | 0148-0731 | |
identifier other | bio_139_12_121004.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://138.201.223.254:8080/yetl1/handle/yetl/4242937 | |
description abstract | Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a promising tool to aid in clinical diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases. However, it uses assumptions that simplify the complexities of the real cardiovascular flow. Due to high-stakes in the clinical setting, it is critical to calculate the effect of these assumptions in the CFD simulation results. However, existing CFD validation approaches do not quantify error in the simulation results due to the CFD solver’s modeling assumptions. Instead, they directly compare CFD simulation results against validation data. Thus, to quantify the accuracy of a CFD solver, we developed a validation methodology that calculates the CFD model error (arising from modeling assumptions). Our methodology identifies independent error sources in CFD and validation experiments, and calculates the model error by parsing out other sources of error inherent in simulation and experiments. To demonstrate the method, we simulated the flow field of a patient-specific intracranial aneurysm (IA) in the commercial CFD software star-ccm+. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) provided validation datasets for the flow field on two orthogonal planes. The average model error in the star-ccm+ solver was 5.63 ± 5.49% along the intersecting validation line of the orthogonal planes. Furthermore, we demonstrated that our validation method is superior to existing validation approaches by applying three representative existing validation techniques to our CFD and experimental dataset, and comparing the validation results. Our validation methodology offers a streamlined workflow to extract the “true” accuracy of a CFD solver. | |
publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
title | Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamic Validation for Medical Use: Application to Intracranial Aneurysm | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 139 | |
journal issue | 12 | |
journal title | Journal of Biomechanical Engineering | |
identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4037792 | |
journal fristpage | 121004 | |
journal lastpage | 121004-10 | |
tree | Journal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2017:;volume( 139 ):;issue: 012 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |