Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validated Guidelines for Simulating Centrifugal Blood Pumps

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Rotary blood pumps (RBPs) employed as ventricular assist devices are developed to support the ventricles of patients suffering from heart failure. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is frequently used to predict the performance and haemocompatibility of these pumps during development, however different simulation techniques employed by various research groups result in inconsistent predictions. This inconsistency is further compounded by the lack of standardised model validation, thus it is difficult to determine which simulation techniques are accurate. To address these problems, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a simplified centrifugal RBP benchmark model. The aim of this paper was to determine simulation settings capable of producing accurate predictions using the published FDA results for validation.

Methods

This paper considers several studies to investigate the impact of simulation options on the prediction of pressure and flow velocities. These included evaluation of the mesh density and interface position through steady simulations as well as time step size and turbulence models (k-ε realizable, k-ω SST, k-ω SST Intermittency, RSM ω-based, SAS and SBES) using a sliding mesh approach.

Results

The most accurate steady simulation using the k-ω turbulence model predicted the pressure to within 5% of experimental results, however experienced issues with unphysical velocity fields. A more computationally expensive transient simulation that used the Stress-Blended Eddy Simulation (SBES) turbulence model provided a more accurate prediction of the velocity field and pressure rise to within experimental variation.

Conclusion

The findings of the study strongly suggest that SBES can be used to better predict RBP performance in the early development phase.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Fluent theory guide 15.0. Canonsburg, PA, 2013.

  2. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Fluent User’s Guide 15.0. Canonsberg, PA, 2013.

  3. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS fluent theory guide 17.0. Canonsburg, PA, 2016.

  4. Behbahani, M., M. Behr, M. Hormes, U. Steinseifer, D. Arora, O. Coronado, et al. A review of computational fluid dynamics analysis of blood pumps. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 20:363–397, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956792509007839.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Burgreen, G. W., J. F. Antaki, Z. J. Wu, and A. J. Holmes. Computational fluid dynamics as a development tool for rotary blood pumps. Artif. Organs 25(5):336–340, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1594.2001.025005336.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fraser, K. H., M. E. Taskin, B. P. Griffith, and Z. J. Wu. The use of computational fluid dynamics in the development of ventricular assist devices. Med. Eng. Phys. 33:263–280, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gross-Hardt, S. H., S. J. Sonntag, F. Boehning, U. Steinseifer, T. Schmitz-Rode, and T. A. S. Kaufmann. Crucial aspects for using computational fluid dynamics as a predictive evaluation tool for blood pumps. ASAIO J. 65(8):864–873, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000001023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Heck, M. L., A. Yen, T. A. Snyder, E. A. O’Rear, and D. V. Papavassiliou. Flow-field simulations and hemolysis estimates for the food and drug administration critical path initiative centrifugal blood pump. Artif. Organs 41(10):11, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ji, J. J., X. W. Luo, and Q. Y. Wu. Design optimization of flow channel and performance analysis for a new-type centrifugal blood pump. IOP Conf. Ser. 52(2):022012, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Malinauskas, R. A., P. Hariharan, S. W. Day, L. H. Herbertson, M. Buesen, U. Steinseifer, et al. FDA benchmark medical device flow models for CFD validation. ASAIO J. 63(2):150–160, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marinova, V., I. Kerroumi, A. Lintermann, J. H. Göbbert, C. Moulinec, S. Rible, et al. Numerical analysis of the FDA centrifugal blood pump. NIC Symposium 2016. Jülich, Germany: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Zentralbibliothek, 2016.

  12. Menter, F. (ed.). Stress-blended eddy simulation (SBES)—a new paradigm in hybrid RANS-LES modeling. Symposium on Hybrid RANS-LES Methods. Springer, 2016.

  13. Nassau, C. J., T. J. Wray, R. K. Agarwal, eds. Computational fluid dynamic analysis of a blood pump: an FDA critical path initiative. ASME/JSME/KSME 2015 Joint Fluids Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015.

  14. Oberkampf, W. L., T. G. Trucano, and C. Hirsch. Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Computational Engineering and Physics. United States: US Department of Energy (US)2003 Contract No.: Report.

  15. Shah, S. R., S. V. Jain, R. N. Patel, and V. J. Lakhera. CFD for centrifugal pumps: a review of the state-of-the-art. Procedia Eng. 51:715–720, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stewart, S. F. C., E. G. Paterson, G. W. Burgreen, P. Hariharan, M. Giarra, V. Reddy, et al. Assessment of CFD performance in simulations of an idealized medical device: results of FDA’s First Computational Interlaboratory Study. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 3(2):139–160, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-012-0087-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Taskin, M. E., K. H. Fraser, T. Zhang, B. Gellman, A. Fleischli, K. A. Dasse, et al. Computational characterization of flow and hemolytic performance of the ultramag blood pump for circulatory support. Artif. Organs 34(12):1099–1113, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01017.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. US Food and Drug Administration. Computational Fluid Dynamics: An FDA Critical Path Initiative, 2017. https://fdacfd.nci.nih.gov/.

  19. Wiegmann, L., S. Boës, D. de Zélicourt, B. Thamsen, M. S. Daners, M. Meboldt, et al. Blood pump design variations and their influence on hydraulic performance and indicators of hemocompatibility. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 46(3):417–428, 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Woelke, M. Eddy viscosity turbulence models emploed by computational fluid dynamic. Prace Instytutu Lotnictwa 4:92–113, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yu, H., S. Engel, G. Janiga, and D. Thévenin. A review of hemolysis prediction models for computational fluid dynamics. Artif. Organs 41:603, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Australian Postgraduate Awards and The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation (NI2017-15). We acknowledge the support of the Griffith University eResearch Services Team and the use of the High Performance Computing Cluster "Gowonda" to complete this research. Shaun D Gregory was supported by a Fellowship (102062) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

Funding

Clayton Semenzin received a grant provided by The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation (NI2017-15). Shaun D Gregory was supported by a Fellowship (102062) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia

    Clayton S. Semenzin & Geoff Tansley

  2. The Innovative Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology Laboratory, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Australia

    Clayton S. Semenzin, Shaun D. Gregory & Geoff Tansley

  3. Department of Engineering, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Benjamin Simpson

  4. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Shaun D. Gregory

Authors
  1. Clayton S. Semenzin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaun D. Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geoff Tansley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clayton S. Semenzin.

Additional information

Associate Editor Amy L. Throckmorton oversaw the review of this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Semenzin, C.S., Simpson, B., Gregory, S.D. et al. Validated Guidelines for Simulating Centrifugal Blood Pumps. Cardiovasc Eng Tech 12, 273–285 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-021-00531-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-021-00531-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation