Cerebral aneurysm blood flow simulations are sensitive to basic solver settings

Abstract Computational modeling of peri-aneurysmal hemodynamics is typically carried out with commercial software without knowledge of the sensitivity of the model to variation in input values. For three aneurysm models, we carried out a formal sensitivity analysis and optimization strategy focused...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of biomechanics 2017-05, Vol.57, p.46-53
Main Authors: Dennis, Kendall D, Kallmes, David F, Dragomir-Daescu, Dan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aneurysm
Aneurysms
Animal models
Blood
Blood flow
Blood Flow Velocity
Boundary conditions
Carotid artery
Cerebrovascular Circulation
CFD
Compounding
Computational efficiency
Computational neuroscience
Computer applications
Computer Simulation
Convergence
Data processing
Error analysis
Flow characteristics
Flow simulation
Fluctuations
Fluid dynamics
Geometry
Heart
Heart diseases
Hemodynamics
Humans
Hydrodynamics
Impact analysis
Inlets
Intracranial Aneurysm - physiopathology
Jets
Mathematical models
Mechanical stimuli
Models, Cardiovascular
Nodes
Patient-Specific Modeling
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Pressure
Risk factors
Rupture
Sensitivity
Sensitivity analysis
Shear stress
Simulation
Software
Solvers
Stroke
Summer
Time dependence
Unsteady flow
Variability
Velocity
Viscosity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Computational modeling of peri-aneurysmal hemodynamics is typically carried out with commercial software without knowledge of the sensitivity of the model to variation in input values. For three aneurysm models, we carried out a formal sensitivity analysis and optimization strategy focused on variation in timestep duration and model residual error values and their impact on hemodynamic outputs. We examined the solution sensitivity to timestep sizes of 10−3 s, 10−4 s, and 10−5 s while using model residual error values of 10−4 , 10−5 , and 10−6 using ANSYS Fluent to observe compounding errors and to optimize solver settings for computational efficiency while preserving solution accuracy. Simulations were compared qualitatively and quantitatively against the most rigorous combination of timestep and residual parameters, 10−5 s and 10−6 , respectively. A case using 10−4 s timesteps, with 10−5 residual errors proved to be a converged solution for all three models with mean velocity and WSS difference RMS errors less than
ISSN:0021-9290
1873-2380
DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.03.020