4.6 Article

Accounting for residence-time in blood rheology models: do we really need non-Newtonian blood flow modelling in large arteries?

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
Volume 15, Issue 146, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0486

Keywords

haemodynamics; computational fluid dynamics; aneurysm; wall shear stress; Lagrangian particle tracking; rouleaux formation

Funding

  1. Northern Arizona University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patient-specific computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a promising tool that provides highly resolved haemodynamics information. The choice of blood theology is an assumption in CFD models that has been subject to extensive debate. Blood is known to exhibit shear-thinning behaviour, and non-Newtonian modelling has been recommended for aneurysmal flows. Current non-Newtonian models ignore rouleaux formation, which is the key player in blood's shear-thinning behaviour. Experimental data suggest that red blood cell aggregation and rouleaux formation require notable red blood cell residence-time (RT) in a low shear rate regime. This study proposes a novel hybrid Newtonian and non-Newtonian rheology model where the shear-thinning behaviour is activated in high RT regions based on experimental data. Image-based abdominal aortic and cerebral aneurysm models are considered and highly resolved CFD simulations are performed using a minimally dissipative solver. Lagrangian particle tracking is used to define a backward particle RT measure and detect stagnant regions with increased rouleaux formation likelihood. Our novel RT-based non-Newtonian model shows a significant reduction in shear-thinning effects and provides haemodynamic results qualitatively identical and quantitatively close to the Newtonian model. Our results have important implications in patient-specific CFD modelling and suggest that non-Newtonian models should be revisited in large artery flows.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available