A systematic comparison between Membrane, Shell, and 3D Solid formulations for non-linear vascular biomechanics

TL;DR

This paper systematically compares membrane, shell, and 3D solid formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics to evaluate their accuracy, computational efficiency, and suitability across various geometries and conditions.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis of three vessel wall modeling approaches, highlighting their relative performance and guiding optimal choice for different biomechanical simulations.

Findings

Membrane model offers computational efficiency with acceptable accuracy in simple geometries.

Shell model balances accuracy and computational cost for complex geometries.

3D solid models provide detailed results but at higher computational expense.

Abstract

Typical computational techniques for vascular biomechanics represent the blood vessel wall via either a membrane, a shell, or a 3D solid element. Each of these formulations has its trade offs concerning accuracy, ease of implementation, and computational costs. Despite the widespread use of these formulations, a systematic comparison on the performance and accuracy of these formulations for nonlinear vascular biomechanics is lacking. Therefore, the decision regarding the optimal choice often relies on intuition or previous experience, with unclear consequences of choosing one approach over the other. Here, we present a systematic comparison among three different formulations to represent vessel wall: (i) a nonlinear membrane model, (ii) a nonlinear, rotation-free shell model, and (iii) a nonlinear 3D solid model. For the 3D solid model, we consider two different implementations employing linear and quadratic interpolation. We present comparison results in both idealized and subject-specific mouse geometries. For the idealized cylindrical geometry, we compare our results against the axisymmetric solution for three different wall thickness to radius ratio. Subsequently, a comparison of these approaches is presented in an idealized bifurcation model for regionally varying wall thickness. Lastly, we present the comparison results for a subject-specific mouse geometry with regionally varying material properties and wall thickness, while incorporating the effect of external tissue surrounding the vessel wall.