Paper detail

Central moments multiple relaxation time LBM for hemodynamic simulations in intracranial aneurysms: An in-vitro validation study using PIV and PC-MRI

The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) has recently emerged as an efficient alternative to classical Navier-Stokes solvers. This is particularly true for hemodynamics in complex geometries. However, in its most basic formulation, {i.e.} with the so-called single relaxation time (SRT) collision operator, it has been observed to have a limited stability domain in the Courant/Fourier space, strongly constraining the minimum time-step and grid size. The development of improved collision models such as the multiple relaxation time (MRT) operator in central moments space has tremendously widened the stability domain, while allowing to overcome a number of other well-documented artifacts, therefore opening the door for simulations over a wider range of grid and time-step sizes. The present work focuses on implementing and validating a specific collision operator, the central Hermite moments multiple relaxation time model with the full expansion of the equilibrium distribution function, to simulate blood flows in intracranial aneurysms. The study further proceeds with a validation of the numerical model through different test-cases and against experimental measurements obtained via stereoscopic particle image velocimetry (PIV) and phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI). For a patient-specific aneurysm both PIV and PC-MRI agree fairly well with the simulation. Finally, low-resolution simulations were shown to be able to capture blood flow information with sufficient accuracy, as demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the flow field {while leading to strongly reduced computation times. For instance in the case of the patient-specific configuration, increasing the grid-size by a factor of two led to a reduction of computation time by a factor of 14 with very good similarity indices still ranging from 0.83 to 0.88.}

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.