The Computational Fluid Dynamics Rupture Challenge 2013—Phase II: Variability of Hemodynamic Simulations in Two Intracranial Aneurysms

Abstract

With the increased availability of computational resources, the past decade has seen a rise in the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for medical applications. There has been an increase in the application of CFD to attempt to predict the rupture of intracranial aneurysms, however, while many hemodynamic parameters can be obtained from these computations, to date, no consistent methodology for the prediction of the rupture has been identified. One particular challenge to CFD is that many factors contribute to its accuracy; the mesh resolution and spatial/temporal discretization can alone contribute to a variation in accuracy. This failure to identify the importance of these factors and identify a methodology for the prediction of ruptures has limited the acceptance of CFD among physicians for rupture prediction. The International CFD Rupture Challenge 2013 seeks to comment on the sensitivity of these various CFD assumptions to predict the rupture by undertaking a comparison of the rupture and blood-flow predictions from a wide range of independent participants utilizing a range of CFD approaches. Twenty-six groups from 15 countries took part in the challenge. Participants were provided with surface models of two intracranial aneurysms and asked to carry out the corresponding hemodynamics simulations, free to choose their own mesh, solver, and temporal discretization. They were requested to submit velocity and pressure predictions along the centerline and on specified planes. The first phase of the challenge, described in a separate paper, was aimed at predicting which of the two aneurysms had previously ruptured and where the rupture site was located. The second phase, described in this paper, aims to assess the variability of the solutions and the sensitivity to the modeling assumptions. Participants were free to choose boundary conditions in the first phase, whereas they were prescribed in the second phase but all other CFD modeling parameters were not prescribed. In order to compare the computational results of one representative group with experimental results, steady-flow measurements using particle image velocimetry (PIV) were carried out in a silicone model of one of the provided aneurysms. Approximately 80% of the participating groups generated similar results. Both velocity and pressure computations were in good agreement with each other for cycle-averaged and peak-systolic predictions. Most apparent "outliers" (results that stand out of the collective) were observed to have underestimated velocity levels compared to the majority of solutions, but nevertheless identified comparable flow structures. In only two cases, the results deviate by over 35% from the mean solution of all the participants. Results of steady CFD simulations of the representative group and PIV experiments were in good agreement. The study demonstrated that while a range of numerical schemes, mesh resolution, and solvers was used, similar flow predictions were observed in the majority of cases. To further validate the computati...

From imaging to hemodynamics – how reconstruction kernels influence the blood flow predictions in intracranial aneurysms

“…This awareness should lead to a careful selection of reconstruction kernels, if CFD computations and therefore patient-specific blood flow predictions are desired. As a result, we strongly recommend including the influence of reconstruction kernels into future CFD challenges like the challenge presented in [3].…”

“…Therefore, several groups mainly focused on the evaluation of the variability of hemodynamic predictions based on varying input parameters. Berg et al [3] compared in a double-blinded, international CFD challenge numerical solutions of 28 participating groups for two patient-specific IAs under given boundary conditions. The results were in a good agreement with only few outliers due to invalidated solvers or inadvertence during postprocessing.…”

Biomechanical Impact of Wrong Positioning of a Dedicated Stent for Coronary Bifurcations: A Virtual Bench Testing Study

“…Instead, when patient-specific properties are not available, we suggest that this source of variability, whatever its influence on aneurysm CFD, could easily be removed by standardizing values. We recommend a dynamic viscosity of 3.7 cPoise, which falls neatly between the values that teams typically used, and, with a recommended standard density of 1.06 g/cm 3 , yields a nice round number of 3.5 cStokes for kinematic viscosity.…”

“…2. teams (10/38%) assumed the same inlet velocity for all cases, which is tantamount to assuming that flow rate scales with inlet diameter squared (i.e., Q~D 2 ). The next most common assumption (6/23%) was the same flow rate for all cases (Q~D 0 ) followed by same WSS (Q~D 3 ) and same Re (Q~D 1 ). Even among the high-experience teams there was no consistency in the inflow scaling approach: two teams each assumed same WSS or flow rate, and one assumed same velocity.…”

“…All teams assumed rigid walls with no slip boundary conditions. Almost all teams assumed a Newtonian rheology, with blood density typically between 1.05 and 1.06 g/cm 3 , and viscosity almost equally divided between 3.5 and 4.0 cPoise (N.B., a 13% difference).…”