IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/gcmbxx/v22y2019i16p1334-1344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of computational modelling techniques for braided stent analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Kelly
  • Donnacha J. McGrath
  • Caoimhe A. Sweeney
  • Kathrin Kurtenbach
  • James A. Grogan
  • Stefan Jockenhoevel
  • Barry J. O’Brien
  • Mark Bruzzi
  • Peter E. McHugh

Abstract

Braided stents are associated with a number of complications in vivo. Accurate computational modelling of these devices is essential for the design and development of the next generation of these stents. In this study, two commonly utilised methods of computationally modelling filament interaction in braided stents are investigated: the join method and the weave method. Three different braided stent designs are experimentally tested and computationally modelled in both radial and v-block configurations. The results of the study indicate that while both methods are capable of capturing braided stent performance to some degree, the weave method is much more robust.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Kelly & Donnacha J. McGrath & Caoimhe A. Sweeney & Kathrin Kurtenbach & James A. Grogan & Stefan Jockenhoevel & Barry J. O’Brien & Mark Bruzzi & Peter E. McHugh, 2019. "Comparison of computational modelling techniques for braided stent analysis," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(16), pages 1334-1344, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:22:y:2019:i:16:p:1334-1344
    DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2019.1663414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2019.1663414
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10255842.2019.1663414?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:22:y:2019:i:16:p:1334-1344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.