
doi: 10.1002/cnm.1281
AbstractThe coupling of lightweight and often thin‐walled structures to fluids in an incompressible regime is a recurring theme in biomechanics. There are many fluid–structure interaction (FSI) solution schemes to address these kinds of problem, each one with its costs and benefits. Here, we attempt a comparison of the most important FSI schemes in the context of biomechanical problems, that is a comparison of different fixed‐point schemes and a block preconditioned monolithic scheme. The emphasis of this study is on the numerical behavior of these FSI schemes to gain an understanding of their effectiveness in comparison with each other. To this end a simplified benchmark problem is studied to show its applicability for more involved biomechanical problems. Two such examples with patient‐specific geometries are also discussed. The monolithic scheme proved to be much more efficient than the partitioned schemes in biomechanical problems. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
fluid-structure interaction, biomechanics, Ingenieurwissenschaften, Biological fluid mechanics, Numerical and other methods in solid mechanics, Biomechanics, coupling strategies, Biomechanical solid mechanics, fluid-structure interaction, biomechanics, coupling strategies, ddc: ddc:620
fluid-structure interaction, biomechanics, Ingenieurwissenschaften, Biological fluid mechanics, Numerical and other methods in solid mechanics, Biomechanics, coupling strategies, Biomechanical solid mechanics, fluid-structure interaction, biomechanics, coupling strategies, ddc: ddc:620
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 109 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
