comparison of pressure reconstruction approaches based on measured and simulated velocity fields
Clicks: 166
ID: 206979
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
166 views
16 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #87 of 96 articles by views in materials science and engineering c
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The pressure drop over a pathological vessel section can be used as an important diagnostic indicator. However, it cannot be measured non-invasively. Multiple approaches for pressure reconstruction based on velocity information are available. Regarding in-vivo data introducing uncertainty these approaches may not be robust and therefore validation is required. Within this study, three independent methods to calculate pressure losses from velocity fields were implemented and compared: A three dimensional and a one dimensional method based on the Pressure Poisson Equation (PPE) as well as an approach based on the work-energy equation for incompressible fluids (WERP). In order to evaluate the different approaches, phantoms from pure Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations and in-vivo PC-MRI measurements were used. The comparison of all three methods reveals a good agreement with respect to the CFD pressure solutions for simple geometries. However, for more complex geometries all approaches lose accuracy. Hence, this study demonstrates the need for a careful selection of an appropriate pressure reconstruction algorithm.
| Reference Key |
samuel2017currentcomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Manthey Samuel;Voß Samuel;Roloff Christoph;Stucht Daniel;Thévenin Dominique;Janiga Gábor;Berg Philipp |
| Journal | materials science and engineering c |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.1515/cdbme-2017-0064
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.