Identification of Peak Stresses in Cardiac Prostheses: A Comparison of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Principal Stress Analyses

This study assessed the accuracy of using a two-dimensional principal stress analysis compared to a three-dimensional analysis in estimating peak turbulent stresses in complex three-dimensional flows associated with cardiac prostheses. Three-component, coincident laser Doppler anemometer measurement...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:ASAIO journal (1992) 1996-05, Vol.42 (3), p.154-163
Hauptverfasser: Fontaine, Arnold A, Ellis, Jeffrey T, Healy, Timothy M, Hopmeyer, Joanne, Yoganathan, Ajit P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 163
container_issue 3
container_start_page 154
container_title ASAIO journal (1992)
container_volume 42
creator Fontaine, Arnold A
Ellis, Jeffrey T
Healy, Timothy M
Hopmeyer, Joanne
Yoganathan, Ajit P
description This study assessed the accuracy of using a two-dimensional principal stress analysis compared to a three-dimensional analysis in estimating peak turbulent stresses in complex three-dimensional flows associated with cardiac prostheses. Three-component, coincident laser Doppler anemometer measurements were obtained in steady flow downstream of three prosthetic valvesa St. Jude bileaflet, Bjork-Shiley monostrut tilting disc, and Starr-Edwards ball and cage. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analyses were performed to identify local peak stresses. Valves with locally two-dimensional flows exhibited a 10-15% underestimation of the largest measured normal stresses compared to the three-dimensional principal stresses. In nearly all flows, measured shear stresses underestimated peak principal shear stresses by 10-100%. Differences between the two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analysis were less than 10% in locally two-dimensional flows. In three-dimensional flows, the two-dimensional principal stresses typically underestimated three-dimensional values by nearly 20%. However, the agreement of the two-dimensional principal stress with the three-dimensional principal stresses was dependent upon the two velocity-components used in the two-dimensional analysis, and was observed to vary across the valve flow field because of flow structure variation. The use of a two-dimensional principal stress analysis with two-component velocity data obtained from measurements misaligned with the plane of maximum mean flow shear can underpredict maximum shear stresses by as much as 100%. ASAIO Journal 1996;42:154-163.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00002480-199642030-00007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wolterskluwer_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_00002480_199642030_00007</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>00002480-199642030-00007</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c947-64fb80d0bd6aebf7a066770171138e1b8ce861608568b0d034cd1d0db9245c7c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UdtOwzAMjRBIjME_5AcCTpMmKW_TuE2axCQqxFuVpqka1rVT0mnaJ_DXZBSQeMAvto59juVjhDCFawqZvIEYCVdAaJYJngADcoTkCZrQlCmScfZ2GmtIFUkyKs7RRQjvALHJ6AR9LCrbDa52Rg-u73Bf45XVa_wyeBuCDdh1eK595bTBK9-HobERvcUzPO83W-1dGEn5vid3bmO7EFV0i1-tD7uA88Zb-6ex8q4zbhurcQWeRfQQNS_RWa3bYK--8xTlD_f5_Iksnx8X89mSmIxLInhdKqigrIS2ZS01CCElUEkpU5aWylglqACVClXGOcZNRSuoyizhqZGGTZEaZU28JnhbF1vvNtofCgrF0dHix9Hi19EvSEYqH6n7vh3ifet2t7e-aKxuh6b47xHsExOOexo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Identification of Peak Stresses in Cardiac Prostheses: A Comparison of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Principal Stress Analyses</title><source>Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Fontaine, Arnold A ; Ellis, Jeffrey T ; Healy, Timothy M ; Hopmeyer, Joanne ; Yoganathan, Ajit P</creator><creatorcontrib>Fontaine, Arnold A ; Ellis, Jeffrey T ; Healy, Timothy M ; Hopmeyer, Joanne ; Yoganathan, Ajit P</creatorcontrib><description>This study assessed the accuracy of using a two-dimensional principal stress analysis compared to a three-dimensional analysis in estimating peak turbulent stresses in complex three-dimensional flows associated with cardiac prostheses. Three-component, coincident laser Doppler anemometer measurements were obtained in steady flow downstream of three prosthetic valvesa St. Jude bileaflet, Bjork-Shiley monostrut tilting disc, and Starr-Edwards ball and cage. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analyses were performed to identify local peak stresses. Valves with locally two-dimensional flows exhibited a 10-15% underestimation of the largest measured normal stresses compared to the three-dimensional principal stresses. In nearly all flows, measured shear stresses underestimated peak principal shear stresses by 10-100%. Differences between the two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analysis were less than 10% in locally two-dimensional flows. In three-dimensional flows, the two-dimensional principal stresses typically underestimated three-dimensional values by nearly 20%. However, the agreement of the two-dimensional principal stress with the three-dimensional principal stresses was dependent upon the two velocity-components used in the two-dimensional analysis, and was observed to vary across the valve flow field because of flow structure variation. The use of a two-dimensional principal stress analysis with two-component velocity data obtained from measurements misaligned with the plane of maximum mean flow shear can underpredict maximum shear stresses by as much as 100%. ASAIO Journal 1996;42:154-163.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-2916</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-943X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00002480-199642030-00007</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amercian Society of Artificial Internal Organs</publisher><ispartof>ASAIO journal (1992), 1996-05, Vol.42 (3), p.154-163</ispartof><rights>1996Amercian Society of Artificial Internal Organs</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&amp;NEWS=n&amp;CSC=Y&amp;PAGE=fulltext&amp;D=ovft&amp;AN=00002480-199642030-00007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwolterskluwer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4595,27901,27902,65206</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fontaine, Arnold A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellis, Jeffrey T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Healy, Timothy M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopmeyer, Joanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoganathan, Ajit P</creatorcontrib><title>Identification of Peak Stresses in Cardiac Prostheses: A Comparison of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Principal Stress Analyses</title><title>ASAIO journal (1992)</title><description>This study assessed the accuracy of using a two-dimensional principal stress analysis compared to a three-dimensional analysis in estimating peak turbulent stresses in complex three-dimensional flows associated with cardiac prostheses. Three-component, coincident laser Doppler anemometer measurements were obtained in steady flow downstream of three prosthetic valvesa St. Jude bileaflet, Bjork-Shiley monostrut tilting disc, and Starr-Edwards ball and cage. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analyses were performed to identify local peak stresses. Valves with locally two-dimensional flows exhibited a 10-15% underestimation of the largest measured normal stresses compared to the three-dimensional principal stresses. In nearly all flows, measured shear stresses underestimated peak principal shear stresses by 10-100%. Differences between the two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analysis were less than 10% in locally two-dimensional flows. In three-dimensional flows, the two-dimensional principal stresses typically underestimated three-dimensional values by nearly 20%. However, the agreement of the two-dimensional principal stress with the three-dimensional principal stresses was dependent upon the two velocity-components used in the two-dimensional analysis, and was observed to vary across the valve flow field because of flow structure variation. The use of a two-dimensional principal stress analysis with two-component velocity data obtained from measurements misaligned with the plane of maximum mean flow shear can underpredict maximum shear stresses by as much as 100%. ASAIO Journal 1996;42:154-163.</description><issn>1058-2916</issn><issn>1538-943X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1UdtOwzAMjRBIjME_5AcCTpMmKW_TuE2axCQqxFuVpqka1rVT0mnaJ_DXZBSQeMAvto59juVjhDCFawqZvIEYCVdAaJYJngADcoTkCZrQlCmScfZ2GmtIFUkyKs7RRQjvALHJ6AR9LCrbDa52Rg-u73Bf45XVa_wyeBuCDdh1eK595bTBK9-HobERvcUzPO83W-1dGEn5vid3bmO7EFV0i1-tD7uA88Zb-6ex8q4zbhurcQWeRfQQNS_RWa3bYK--8xTlD_f5_Iksnx8X89mSmIxLInhdKqigrIS2ZS01CCElUEkpU5aWylglqACVClXGOcZNRSuoyizhqZGGTZEaZU28JnhbF1vvNtofCgrF0dHix9Hi19EvSEYqH6n7vh3ifet2t7e-aKxuh6b47xHsExOOexo</recordid><startdate>199605</startdate><enddate>199605</enddate><creator>Fontaine, Arnold A</creator><creator>Ellis, Jeffrey T</creator><creator>Healy, Timothy M</creator><creator>Hopmeyer, Joanne</creator><creator>Yoganathan, Ajit P</creator><general>Amercian Society of Artificial Internal Organs</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199605</creationdate><title>Identification of Peak Stresses in Cardiac Prostheses: A Comparison of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Principal Stress Analyses</title><author>Fontaine, Arnold A ; Ellis, Jeffrey T ; Healy, Timothy M ; Hopmeyer, Joanne ; Yoganathan, Ajit P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c947-64fb80d0bd6aebf7a066770171138e1b8ce861608568b0d034cd1d0db9245c7c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fontaine, Arnold A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellis, Jeffrey T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Healy, Timothy M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopmeyer, Joanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoganathan, Ajit P</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>ASAIO journal (1992)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fontaine, Arnold A</au><au>Ellis, Jeffrey T</au><au>Healy, Timothy M</au><au>Hopmeyer, Joanne</au><au>Yoganathan, Ajit P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Identification of Peak Stresses in Cardiac Prostheses: A Comparison of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Principal Stress Analyses</atitle><jtitle>ASAIO journal (1992)</jtitle><date>1996-05</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>154</spage><epage>163</epage><pages>154-163</pages><issn>1058-2916</issn><eissn>1538-943X</eissn><abstract>This study assessed the accuracy of using a two-dimensional principal stress analysis compared to a three-dimensional analysis in estimating peak turbulent stresses in complex three-dimensional flows associated with cardiac prostheses. Three-component, coincident laser Doppler anemometer measurements were obtained in steady flow downstream of three prosthetic valvesa St. Jude bileaflet, Bjork-Shiley monostrut tilting disc, and Starr-Edwards ball and cage. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analyses were performed to identify local peak stresses. Valves with locally two-dimensional flows exhibited a 10-15% underestimation of the largest measured normal stresses compared to the three-dimensional principal stresses. In nearly all flows, measured shear stresses underestimated peak principal shear stresses by 10-100%. Differences between the two-dimensional and three-dimensional principal stress analysis were less than 10% in locally two-dimensional flows. In three-dimensional flows, the two-dimensional principal stresses typically underestimated three-dimensional values by nearly 20%. However, the agreement of the two-dimensional principal stress with the three-dimensional principal stresses was dependent upon the two velocity-components used in the two-dimensional analysis, and was observed to vary across the valve flow field because of flow structure variation. The use of a two-dimensional principal stress analysis with two-component velocity data obtained from measurements misaligned with the plane of maximum mean flow shear can underpredict maximum shear stresses by as much as 100%. ASAIO Journal 1996;42:154-163.</abstract><pub>Amercian Society of Artificial Internal Organs</pub><doi>10.1097/00002480-199642030-00007</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-2916
ispartof ASAIO journal (1992), 1996-05, Vol.42 (3), p.154-163
issn 1058-2916
1538-943X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_00002480_199642030_00007
source Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Journals@Ovid Complete
title Identification of Peak Stresses in Cardiac Prostheses: A Comparison of Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Principal Stress Analyses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T11%3A52%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wolterskluwer_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Identification%20of%20Peak%20Stresses%20in%20Cardiac%20Prostheses:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Two-Dimensional%20Versus%20Three-Dimensional%20Principal%20Stress%20Analyses&rft.jtitle=ASAIO%20journal%20(1992)&rft.au=Fontaine,%20Arnold%20A&rft.date=1996-05&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=154&rft.epage=163&rft.pages=154-163&rft.issn=1058-2916&rft.eissn=1538-943X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00002480-199642030-00007&rft_dat=%3Cwolterskluwer_cross%3E00002480-199642030-00007%3C/wolterskluwer_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true