Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026

Experimental Investigation of Secondary Flow Structures Downstream of a Model Type IV Stent Failure in a 180° Curved Artery Test Section
Published on: July 19, 2016
Reliability of characterising coronary artery flow with the flow-split outflow strategy: Comparison against the
Mingzi Zhang1, Hamed Keramati1, Ramtin Gharleghi1
1Sydney Vascular Modelling Group, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Insights
Simplified flow-split models accurately predict coronary haemodynamics at rest but overestimate wall shear stress and underestimate fractional flow reserve during hyperaemia, especially in severe stenoses. Multiscale simulations are recommended for hyperaemic conditions.
Area of Science:
- Computational fluid dynamics
- Cardiovascular science
- Medical imaging
Background:
- Patient-specific computational modeling of coronary haemodynamics is crucial but often impractical due to resource constraints.
- This limitation hinders extensive simulations, particularly for complex diseased arterial conditions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare coronary haemodynamics using a simplified flow-split strategy against computationally intensive multiscale simulations.
- The study evaluated these methods under resting and hyperaemic conditions in coronary arteries with varying stenosis severity.
Main Methods:
- Six patient-specific left coronary artery trees with mild (<50%) and severe (>70%) stenoses were reconstructed.
- Both 0D-3D coupled multiscale models and flow-split approaches with exponents (2.0-3.0) were employed for simulation.
- Key haemodynamic metrics were statistically compared between the two simulation methods.
Main Results:
- Flow-split and multiscale simulations showed no significant differences under resting conditions, irrespective of stenosis severity.
- Under hyperaemic conditions, flow-split methods significantly overestimated time-averaged wall shear stress and underestimated fractional flow reserve.
- Discrepancies were more pronounced in severe stenoses, and varying the flow-split exponent did not significantly alter results.
Conclusions:
- Flow-split strategies (exponents 2.0-3.0) are suitable for modeling stenosed coronaries under resting conditions.
- Multiscale simulations are recommended for accurate modeling of hyperaemic conditions, particularly in severely stenosed arteries.
Background:
In computational modelling of coronary haemodynamics, imposing patient-specific flow conditions is paramount, yet often impractical due to resource and time constraints, limiting the ability to perform a large number of simulations particularly for diseased cases.
Objective:
To compare coronary haemodynamics quantified using a simplified flow-split strategy with varying exponents against the clinically verified but computationally intensive multiscale simulations under both resting and hyperaemic conditions in arteries with varying degrees of stenosis.
Methods:
Six patient-specific left coronary artery trees were segmented and reconstructed, including three with severe (>70 %) and three with mild (<50 %) focal stenoses. Simulations were performed for the entire coronary tree to account for the flow-limiting effects from epicardial artery stenoses. Both a 0D-3D coupled multiscale model and a flow-split approach with four different exponents (2.0, 2.27, 2.33, and 3.0) were used. The resulting prominent haemodynamic metrics were statistically compared between the two methods.
Results:
Flow-split and multiscale simulations did not significantly differ under resting conditions regardless of the stenosis severity. However, under hyperaemic conditions, the flow-split method significantly overestimated the time-averaged wall shear stress by up to 16.8 Pa (p = 0.031) and underestimate the fractional flow reserve by 0.327 (p = 0.043), with larger discrepancies observed in severe stenoses than in mild ones. Varying the exponent from 2.0 to 3.0 within the flow-split methods did not significantly affect the haemodynamic results (p > 0.141).
Conclusions:
Flow-split strategies with exponents between 2.0 and 3.0 are appropriate for modelling stenosed coronaries under resting conditions. Multiscale simulations are recommended for accurate modelling of hyperaemic conditions, especially in severely stenosed arteries.(247/250 words).
More Related Videos
06:39Ultrasound Based Assessment of Coronary Artery Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Using the Pressure Overload Model in Mice
Published on: April 13, 2015
13:07Optical Coherence Tomography Based Biomechanical Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis of Coronary Atherosclerosis Progression
Published on: January 15, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Blood Flow
Typical Model Studies
Pipe Flowrate Measurement
The orifice meter is a simple,...