Fluid structure interaction in

abdominal aortic aneurysm using

ANSYS Workbench

by
Florentina Ene
Outline

Objectives
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)
Computational methods (CM)
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI)
Validation of CM
Comparison of CM
Haemodynamics and mechanical factors
Objectives

To simulate the interaction between the blood

flow and the diseased aneurismal wall by
Computational simulation
Experimental testing
for the study of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)

To investigate the influence of certain

haemodynamics factors
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA)

AAA - a localised abnormal

dilatation of the abdominal aorta
Diameter - 1.5 times larger than
the nominal diameter
Causes - primarily
atherosclerosis
Population - 4:1 ratio male to
female, 75% over 60 years old
Risk - a high risk of sudden
rupture
Rupture - 3:1 female to male
risk rupture

http://www.emedicine.com/MED
Physics of AAA

Rupture of AAA
Surgical criterion: max diameter 5-5.5 cm

Maximum wall stress (Raghavan, 1996)

Asymmetry influence (Vorp, 1998; Scotti,2005)

Intraluminal thrombus (ILT) (Wang, 2002)

Pulsating interaction (DiMartino, 2001)

Hemodynamics in AAA

Low flow

Recirculation regions

Secondary flow

Low mean wall shear stress

Temporal oscillations in shear

(Moore,1992; Moore, 1994; Taylor,1998; Taylor, 2002; Long,1998; Tang, 2006)

ANSYS Workbench

ANSYS Workbench
ANSYS ICEM Mesh
ANSYS Simulation (ANSYS Structural) FEA
ANSYS CFX CFD
Computational Methods for AAA

Structural Pressure Analysis (FEA)

Static (sFEA)
Transient (tFEA)
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
Steady flow (sCFD)
Pulsating flow (tCFD)
Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI)
Steady FSI (sFSI)
Pulsating FSI (tFSI)
Computational Methods for AAA

FEA evaluates rupture potential

Deformations
Stresses
CFD evaluates unfavourable flow conditions
Velocity distribution
Pressure distribution
Wall shear stress
FSI evaluates rupture potential due to extra
loading of unfavourable flow conditions
Steps of Computational Methods

Geometry
1 Mesh (Elements)
Pre-processor
Materials
Boundary conditions

Convergence
2 Solver
Solution monitor and control

Independence analysis
3 Post-processor Validation
Comparison
1
Realistic Aorta Model with Aneurysm
from CT Scan

Realistic Idealised

Mimics,
Materialise
1 AAA Geometry

Realistic AAA model Idealised AAA model

with/without ILT with/without ILT
1 Meshing

Multiblocking technique with O-grid

strategy
1 Meshing
Hexahedral fluid volume - Blood
Quadratic shell element - Wall
Tetrahedral solid volume - ILT
 1
Material and
Boundary Conditions
Geometry
&
Mesh

Newtonian
homogenous
FEA CFD incompressible laminar
Linear elastic =1055 kg/m3
E=2.7 MPa =0.0035 Pa s
=0.45
Material Material
Velocity inlet Pressure outlets
=2000 kg/m3 properties properties 0.25 40

Ui=0, 30

Pressure (mmHg)
Velocity (m/s)
i=x,y,z@Si,So Boundary Boundary
0.15
20

FSI interface @wall

(Pressure from CFD)
conditions conditions 0.05
10

Time step 0.01s Simulation Simulation -0.05

0 0.4 0.8 1.2
-10

5 pulse cycles
Time (s)

parameters parameters Time step 0.01s

5 pulse cycles

Solver
Solid domain Fluid domain
FEA simulation CFD simulation
2 Solver

FLUID governing equations

The continuity equation u 0

Navier-Stokes momentum equation u

(u )u p/ f ( / f ) 2
u
t

SOLID governing equations

The motion equation ij , j fi ai in S (t )
The equilibrium equation ij i n ti on S (t )
The constitutive equation ij Cijkl kl in S (t )

FSI
Fluid: Force send as load to solid Flui Soli
Solid: Displacement send as BC to fluid d d
3 Postprocessor

Vector/Countours/Streamlines/Animation/Graphs
Results for every domains element

Is the solution valid?

Engineering criteria
Compare to analytical solutions
Compare to experimental solutions
Compare to previous studies
Compare to similar applications
Mesh check
3 Independence Tests

Independence tests Determine

Mesh type independence 1 mesh type
Mesh independence 1 mesh density
Convergence criteria 1 convergence value

For time-dependent analysis

Pulse cycle independence No of pulse cycles
Timestep independence 1 timestep size
3
Verification and
Optimisation
Analytical solutions Solution type Wall type Numerical technique
Laplace Pressure in thin wall Elastic CSD (FEA)
Hagen-Poiseuilles Steady flow Rigid CFD (FVM)
Womersley Pulsatile flow Rigid CFD (FVM)
Womersley Pulsatile flow Elastic FSI (FEA, FVM)

SOLID DOMAIN FLUID DOMAIN

Outlet edge Outlet surface
Inlet surface
Inlet edge

Wall surface
Wall surface

Solid domain Fluid domain

Youngs modulus E=2.7MPa Density =1055kg/m3
Poisson ratio =0.45 Viscosity =0.0034 Pas
Density =2000kg/m3
Thickness (SHELL181) h=0.002m
 3
Validation with
Analytical Solutions
Steady flow in rigid tube
Theory CFD
0.2

Velocity (m/s)
0.1

0
Pulsatile flow in -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 Pulsatile flow in
rigid tube Radial distance (m)
elastic tube
Theory CFD 0.25s Theory FSI
0.25 sec
0.12
0.12

Velocity w (m/s)
Velocity (m/s)

0.08
0.08

0.04
0.04

0 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Diameter Ratio Diameter ratio

3
Validation with
Experimental/Published Results

Static pressure in compliant AAA Pulsatile pressure in compliant AAA

model model
FEA w/ILT EXP w/ILT FEA w/out Cp1 - rest Position 1 FEA
EXP w/out Outer radius Inner radius
ILT radius Position 2 FEA
Position 3 FEA

Change in diameter(mm)
1.50 1.2 Position 4 FEA
Radial deformation (mm)

Position 1 EXP
30
Position 2 EXP

Radius (mm)
1.00 0.8 Position 3 EXP
Position 4 EXP
20
0.50 0.4

0.00 10 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Axial length from maximum diameter (mm) Time (s)
 3
Validation with
Experimental/Published Results

Steady flow in rigid wall bifurcation Pulsatile flow in rigid wall bifurcation
(Walburn & Stein, 1981) (Morris, 2004)
10 mm Position 2
Walburn & Stein CFD LDA CFD
0.45 0.08

0.35

Velocity (m/s)
0.06
Velocity (m/s)

0.25
0.04
0.15
0.02
0.05
0
-1 -0.5 -0.05 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Diameter ratio
Diameter ratio
3 Ultrasound Flow Visualisation
3 Comparison of CM

6 numerical methods
sFEA/tFEA
sCFD/tCFD
sFSI/tFSI
3 models
Idealised Realistic Realistic with ILT
3 Comparison in Realistic AAA
3 Comparison in Realistic AAA

1 - AAA without ILT

2 - AAA with ILT

POSITIONS

4
3 Comparison in Realistic AAA

Deformations & Von Mises Stresses

Max 5% difference between sFEA and tFSI
Pressure
Max difference 2%
Velocity
tCFD>tFSI by max 40%
Wall shear stress
tCFD>tFSI by max 20%
Computational effort
tFSI - 10 x sFEA sFEA may be used as clinical tool
tFSI 10 x sCFD
 Haemodynamics &
Mechanical Factors

A1 Non-planarity effect
A2 Aortic arch
A3 Wall thickness
A4 ILT presence

A5 ILT properties Exp

A6 Wall curvature
A1
FSI in realistic aorta model with
aneurysm
A1
FSI in realistic aorta model with
aneurysm
A2 Aortic Arch Velocity (tCFD)

Max
velocity
T=0.25s

Max
deceleration
T=0.35s
Max
acceleration
T=0.15s
A3 Wall Thickness

AAA thinning of wall

Aorta
3 models of varying wall
H1 & H2: 2 mm
thickness

AAA
H3 Thickness Diameter H1 : 2 mm
H2: 1 mm
0.002 0.04
Thickness (m)

Diameter (m)

0.001 0.02 Iliac arteries:

Aorta AAA Iliac
H1 & H2: 2 mm
arteries
0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Axial length (m)
Von Mises stress (Pa) Deformation (m)

A3

H1
H2
AAA without ILT
H3
Wall Thickness

Von Mises stress (Pa) Deformation (m)

H1
H2
AAA with ILT
H3
 A4
Velocity (m/s)
-ILT
+ILT

Deformation (m) Wall shear stress (Pa)

-ILT
+ILT
AAA With and Without ILT
A5
Influence of ILT Properties &
Wall Curvature

1: No ILT
2: ILT E=0.05 MPa
3: ILT E=0.1 MPa
4: ILT E=0.2 MPa

Wall curvature
peaks in diametral strains and compliance
Ene,2011
high stress
Conclusions

ANSYS was proven to be an efficient and

accurate tool to analyse haemodynamics
and mechanical factors influencing AAA

Mesh independence and pulse cycle

independence should be optimised

Validation of FEA/CFD/FSI was obtained

with analytical and experimental results
Conclusions

AAA rupture could be predicted using

computational simulation

Effects of patient specific geometry are

important on haemodynamics in AAA

Wall thickness and ILT presence are

essential in evaluating AAA rupture
potential
Acknowledgements

This project was funded by:

GMedTech Research Group