State-of-the-art numerical fluid–structure interaction methods for aortic and mitral heart valves simulations: A review
Numerical fluid–structure interaction (FSI) methods have been widely used to predict the cardiac mechanics and associated hemodynamics of native and artificial heart valves (AHVs). Offering a high degree of spatial and temporal resolution, these methods circumvent the need for cardiac surgery to assess the performance of heart valves. Assessment of these FSI methods in terms of accuracy, realistic modeling, and numerical stability is required, which is the objective of this paper. FSI methods could be classified based on how the computational domain is discretized, and on the coupling techniques employed between fluid and structure domains. The grid-based FSI methods could be further classified based on the kinematical description of the computational fluid (blood) grid, being either fixed grid, moving grid, or combined fixed–moving grid methods. The review reveals that fixed grid methods mostly cause imprecise calculations of flow parameters near the blood–leaflet interface. Moving grid methods are more accurate, however they require cumbersome remeshing and smoothing. The combined fixed–moving grid methods overcome the shortcomings of fixed and moving grid methods, but they are computationally expensive. The mesh-free methods have been able to encounter the problems faced by grid-based methods; however, they have been only limitedly applied to heart valve simulations. Among the coupling techniques, explicit partitioned coupling is mostly unstable, however the implicit partitioned coupling not only has the potential to be stable but is also comparatively cheaper. This in-depth review is expected to be helpful for the readers to evaluate the pros and cons of FSI methods for heart valve simulations.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
|
|
|
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Engineering with Computers
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Fluids
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Journal of Fluids and Structures
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Scientific Reports
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Microfluidics and Nanofluidics
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Results in Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Frontiers in Medical Technology
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Ocean Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Physics of Fluids
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
International Journal of Engineering Science
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Medical Engineering and Physics
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Biomedical Engineering Advances
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Computational Particle Mechanics
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Mathematics
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
1
|
Publishers
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
|
|
Elsevier
8 publications, 29.63%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
7 publications, 25.93%
|
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
3 publications, 11.11%
|
|
|
MDPI
2 publications, 7.41%
|
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
2 publications, 7.41%
|
|
|
Oxford University Press
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
AIP Publishing
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Wiley
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1 publication, 3.7%
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.