% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Rttgers:1039212,
author = {Rüttgers, Mario and Waldmann, Moritz and Ito, Shota and
Wüstenhagen, Carolin and Grundmann, Sven and Brede, Martin
and Lintermann, Andreas},
title = {{P}atient-specific lattice-{B}oltzmann simulations with
inflow conditions from magnetic resonance velocimetry
measurements for analyzing cerebral aneurysms},
journal = {Computers in biology and medicine},
volume = {187},
issn = {0010-4825},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {FZJ-2025-01748},
pages = {109794},
year = {2025},
abstract = {Magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) measurements were used
as inflow conditions for lattice-Boltzmann (LB) simulations
to analyze cerebral aneurysms. Unlike previous studies on
larger vascular structures, aneurysm analysis involves
smaller scales and higher pressure differences, making
near-wall velocity measurements challenging with standard 3
Tesla scanners. To address this, the aneurysm geometry was
scaled 5-fold for sufficient magnetic resonance velocimetry
(MRV) resolution, with inflow measurements interpolated onto
the simulation grid while ensuring dimensionless equivalence
via the Reynolds number. Zero-velocity points were included
near walls to enforce the no-slip condition if measurement
points exceed the simulation domain. The proposed
interpolation-based inflow method was compared to a
nearest-neighbor approach and a parabolic velocity profile.
It achieved the best agreement with MRV centerline velocity
measurements (mean error: $3.12\%),$ followed by the
nearest-neighbor method $(3.18\%)$ and the parabolic profile
$(9.85\%).$ The parabolic inflow led to centerline velocity
overpredictions and total pressure underpredictions, while
the nearest-neighbor approach underestimated the wall shear
stress (WSS) and exhibited inconsistencies in wall normal
stress (e.g., maximum WSS was $18.3\%$ lower than with
interpolation). Using the interpolated inflow method,
Newtonian and non-Newtonian flows based on the
Carreau–Yasuda model were compared. The non-Newtonian
model showed lower centerline velocities and total pressure
but higher WSS than the Newtonian case. These findings
highlight the importance of accurate, patient-specific
inflow conditions and the necessity of non-Newtonian
modeling for reliable WSS predictions. Combining MRV
measurements with non-Newtonian LB simulations provides a
robust framework for personalized cerebral aneurysm
hemodynamic evaluation.},
cin = {JSC},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
pnm = {5111 - Domain-Specific Simulation $\&$ Data Life Cycle Labs
(SDLs) and Research Groups (POF4-511) / HANAMI - Hpc
AlliaNce for Applications and supercoMputing Innovation: the
Europe - Japan collaboration (101136269)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5111 / G:(EU-Grant)101136269},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.109794},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1039212},
}