First Draft of the paper

Carlos Duran-Hernandez∗ Rene Ledesma-Alonso

Department of Computing,
Electronics and Mechatronics
Universidad de las Americas Puebla
San Andres Cholula, Puebla, 72810
Mexico
Email: jose.duranhz@udlap.mx
Department of Industrial
and Mechanical Engineering
Universidad de las Americas Puebla
San Andres Cholula, Puebla, 72810
Mexico
Email: rene.ledemsa@udlap.mx

Gibran Etcheverry ∗
Department of Computing,
Electronics and Mechatronics
Universidad de las Americas Puebla
San Andres Cholula, Puebla, 72810
Mexico
Email: gibran.etcheverry@udlap.mx

Cardiovascular diseases are related to circulatory system,
and they represent one of the main causes of death around the
world. Within the CardioVascular System, the heart valves
play a crucial role because they are responsible of letting the
blood flow around the entire body. If one of these valves
fails, serious pathologies may happen and deteriorate the
condition of a person. The study of artificial cardiac valves
by means of a FSI has represented an important approach to
design new and better models. Among other alternatives,
lumped models are able to replicate the systemic tree
by using passive circuit elements. The disadvantages of
previous models are the high computational time required
for simulating and the vast number of parameters to deal
with and their respective adjustment for each scenario. Due
to these reasons, the content of this paper shows a well
established method but not applied in this area known as
System Identification. This method is able to estimate the
same outputs that can be measure with FSI and Lumped
Models but overcoming their respective disadvantages.
Results shown significant correlated results to the selected
outputs Opening Area and Pressure Difference.
Nomenclature
Ω f Fluid Domain.
Ωs Solid Domain.
1 Introduction
Atrial fibrillation, cardiac arrest, strokes and heart
failures among others disorders represent approximately one
∗ Address all correspondence related to ASME style format, figures and
correspondence for other issues to this author.
death every 40 seconds in USA [1]. Within the heart,
the cardiac cycle is divided into two stages, systole and
diastole. Considering systole as the initial step, this stage
is characterize by the contraction of right and left ventricles.
Until the pressure inside of these ventricles is high enough,
aortic and pulmonary valves remain opened ejecting the
blood to the aortic and pulmonary arteries respectively.
Diastole stage happens after the ventricles are relaxed then
the tricuspid and mitral valves open due to the pressure inside
the atria, filling both ventricles with blood once again [1].
When aortic valve is opened, mitral valve must remain close
to avoid the flow going into the atrium and conversely. If
one of these stop working properly, pathologies mentioned
before may happen. Due to this reason and thinking in
enhance the health condition of a person these valves are
usually replaced by prosthetic heart valves. If one of these
valves is not capable of doing a full close or open properly
(regurgitation and stenosis, respectively) can avoid the heart
to let the blood enter or leave to continue with the blood flow
through the entire body, causing a problem that might end in
death [2].
Regarding prosthetic heart valves, studies in many fields
have been done. According to [3] Biological Heart Valves
(BHV) has outstanding mechanical and haemodynamic
properties because they are made of organic tissues but their
lifespan is short. On the other hand, Mechanical Heart
Valves (MHV) produce high stress levels that may lead to
red blood cells destruction but their design helps to minimize
back-flow and they have a much longer life time [2, 4].
Considering that they are made of ”unnatural” materials to
the body they present stagnation points, thrombus formation
and cavitation at the hinges and pivots [5]. However, the
1 Copyright
c by ASME
main advantage of MHV is the easiness of modeling, design
and fabrication, with continuous improvements in geometry
or mechanical properties, allowing MHV to obtain better
performances after every iteration. Nowadays the creation
of these mechanical valves is intended to be from new
bio-compatible materials seeking to reduce damage in blood
cells and stress levels.
Considering that the design of MHVs is based on
mathematical modeling, they can be tested by using
numerical simulations. This approach yields data, by
simulating the motion of the fluid and computing the
rotation of the valve leaflets, which are impossible to
measure in a real patient. The methodology employed
to simulate the performance of valves is known as
computational Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI), and consists
of a combination of Incompressible Computational Fluid
Dynamics (ICFD) to calculate the fluid motion and a force
balance to compute the leaflets rotation. This alternative
allows us to modify and create new geometries by using
a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software without any
complication and they can provide a vast amount of
information depending on the necessities, such as stresses
acting on the surfaces or any other force interfering with the
fluid/structure. Studies on the flow across MHVs have been
carried out in [6–9]. Nevertheless, a numerical simulation
of flexible leaflet materials is completely different, since
their motion depends strongly on the interaction with the
fluid. In this case, the dynamics of the mechanical valve
can be simulated using time-dependent Finite Element
Method (FEM) combined with ICFD. Many works using
this strategy are found in literature using different techniques
[10, 11], for instance an Arbitraty Lagrange-Eulerian
(ALE) [12] method, the Fictitious Domain Method (FDM)
and the Immersed Boundary Method (IBM) in [2, 13,
14] and [15, 16], respectively. Another interesting
technique specially adapted for cardiac valves study is
proposed in [17, 18], implementing a new method called
Immersogeometric Analysis (IGA) based on the augmented
Lagrangian equation.
Other approach to represent the Cardiovascular System
(CVS) are the well known lumped models. By using passive
elements such as resistors, capacitors and inductors, the
Windkessel Model (WM) is capable of reproducing the
peripheral resistance (resistance to blood flow in veins), the
blood flow resistance due to the aortic or mitral valve, the
arterial compliance (elasticity of arteries) and the inertia of
blood flow, respectively. Different variations of these models
are presented in [1, 19–24]. One disadvantage with these
models is the inability to analyze variations in the blood
flow distribution and wave transmission phenomena [1].
This limitation is solved by separating into multiple blocks
to avoid considering the entire systemic tree, allowing to
set different variables between different segments and each
one behaves as an independent lumped model. Another
limitation is the need to identify and calculate all the
parameters to adjust to a particular physiological condition.
In view of previous considerations, the aim of this
paper is to introduce the study of a simplified cardiac valve
model by conducting a mechanical simulation (ICFD and
FSI), then a parametric study is conducted to create a data
matrix containing 45 combinations with changes in the
solid and fluid domain. Next, a not explored alternative
in this cardiac valves modeling area is proposed by means
of a System Identification (SI) method capable of using
transfer functions to estimate the expected outputs without
needing a high computation cost or a large number of
parameters to characterize the phenomena. Results are then
validated by estimation cases outside the initially proposed
data matrix, these cases are compared against their respective
FSI simulations.
The content in this paper shows in Section 2 the general
methodology is explained for all the steps conducted in the
simulations. Section 3 shows results of every subsection,
i.e., the meshes selected, the first FSI result, the parametric
study output curves and then the SI model with their
respective coefficients for each variation. Finally, Section
4 and 5 present conclusions and discussion of future work,
respectively.
2 Methodology
When an object is immersed into a channel, a chamber,
a wind tunnel or even within our bodies, for instance
when a blood cell or clot moves through the heart or
along the smallest arteries in the body, a FSI phenomenon
occurs between the object and the surrounding fluid. As
mentioned in Section 1, computational FSI is one of the
primary alternatives to comprehend how cardiac valves
behave under certain fluid conditions. Contrary to a ICFD
experiment where inlet velocity is fixed to a constant value
the entire period, in FSI, the object has its own velocity and
displacement as consequence of the initial configuration that
is set to be a moving part and not a static object. As a first
step, a simplified 2D cardiac valve model has been studied
by means of a numerical simulation, which corresponds to
the geometry and flow conditions presented in a previous
experimental work [5]. The leaflets used in the experimental
work have the same cross-sectional area along all the width
of the channel, as consequence of this, our case can be
simplified into a 2D case, neglecting not only the width of
the channel but the width of the valves as well (see Fig. 1).
This consideration affects directly in the computational time
invested during calculations.
Parameters used in the experiment can be classified
as a) Fluid domain (Ω f ) ∈ {U f ,V, f , ρ f , µ}, where the
elements are inlet velocity, stroke volume, frequency, fluid
density and dynamic viscosity, respectively, and b) Solid
domain (Ωs ) ∈ {d, l, E, ρs , ν}, where the elements are leaflet
thickness, length, elastic modulus, material density and
poisson ratio, respectively. The channel is presented in
terms of semi-height, where h = 15mm, w = 50mm, and the
cross-section of 20h x 2h x w. The leaflets have 0.4mm
and 26.3mm for thickness and length, respectively. The
main purpose of this first simulation is to obtain the most
approximated results than the experimental ones, for this
reason, parameters of both domains (Ω f ) and (Ωs ) listed in
Table 1 are the same to those established in [5].
2 Copyright
c by ASME
 Non-Slip Condition Wall 1
0.8
Fast Fourier Transform

Amplitude
0.8 0.4
h Outlet

Velocity [U/U max]

Inlet Flow
Wall Pressure 0.6
0

h Wall -0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.4 Frequencies [Hz]
10h 10h

Non-Slip Condition Wall 0.2 Unitary Pulse g(t)

Inlet Velocity Curve

Fig. 1. Layout of the system: h represents semi-height, w width of 0

the test channel (neglected in this case). Top and bottom wall, as well
as the valves, are configured as a non-slip condition objects. Original -0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
found in [5]
Time [t/T]
.
Fig. 2. Inlet velocity curve configured to the FSI simulation. Systolic
and diastolic stages are shown. αγ is a value that controls the
Table 1. List of parameters used for the first FSI simulation
magnitude of velocity during diastole.
Fluid Value Units Solid Value Units

Uf 0.096412 m/s E 2.15x106 Pa

V 3.8x10−5 m3 ν 0.47
f 0.666 Hz ρs 1070
ρf 1000 kg/m3 d 0.0004
µ 0.01 Pa · s l 0.026
In a previous work [25], drag and lift coefficients were
measured to compare them with theoretical data by means
of an ICFD method. Results obtained using LS-Dyna are
close correlated to theoretical curves found in literature.
It is also observed that taking advantage of the software
capabilities to split one task into many small tasks by using
Massively Parallel Processing (MPP), helps to substantially
reduce more than 80 % of the computational time used than
employing a Shared Memory Processing (SMP) approach.
For this reason, the approach used for this simulation is MPP
as well.
For this test, measurements are focused in how much
and how long are the valves opened, namely Opening Area
(Aop ) and Pressure Difference (∆D) located at two different
points P0 and P1 at −5h and 5h from the center in the x −
plane, respectively.
The cardiac cycle is represented by a pulsatile flow curve
that in the present simulation does not corresponds to a real
cardiac cycle curve. In this case, the curve is designed to
behave similarly as the system configured in [5], with aim of
obtaining similar experimental results in Aop and ∆D. Systole
stage (ts ) is usually constituted as 2T
5 and diastole stage (td )
as the remaining time in the period. The normalized shape
for the inlet curve is formed by Eq. (1) and it is divided in
five stages depending on the time t (3 stages correspond to
systole and two for diastole), where A, B,C, D are parameters
to modify amplitude, slope, phase and a non-zero center
amplitude, respectively (see Fig. 2, blue curve).
y(t) = Atanh(Bt +C) + D
In order to avoid back-flow, it is necessary to implement
- two extra parameters. The α value is a constant
kg/m3 representing the ratio between systole and diastole stages
m (systole/diastole) and is equal to 0.5384 and γ allows to
m control the magnitude of this relation. The magnitude of
the velocity is obtained by initially considering the following
volume formula:
Z T
V =A Us/d · g(t)dt (2)
0
where g(t) = 1 during ts (represents a unitary pulse, see
Fig. 2, red dotted curve) and g(t) = −α during td , A is the
cross-sectional area A = hw. By solving the integral divided
into the two stages, we obtain the following:
V V
Us = Ud = Us = Ud (3)
Ats Aαtd
2.1 Validation Test
As a means to guarantee efficient simulations, it is
necessary to perform a validation test by changing and
evaluating different mesh sizes not only for the solid body
but the fluid domain as well. Determining which mesh
can lead to the expected results not only depends on the
accuracy of the same but also not to consume too much
time in execution and to complete calculations. Time
step size equally affects the final results, choosing a big
value leads to inaccuracies in the model, and selecting a
small value produces accurate calculations but requires a
high computational time procedure. For this reason, three
different validation test are proposed. First test consists
on selecting the most appropriate mesh size for the solid
domain by carrying out a structural analysis. Second test
involves a FSI configuration to select the mesh size for the
fluid domain. Finally, third test considers both solid and fluid
meshes selected previously but with different time steps sizes
(1) in a simulation time of T = 1.502s.

3 Copyright

c by ASME
2.1.1 Solid Mesh
The selection of the mesh size in the Solid domain (Ωs )
is performed by conducting a structural analysis using the
superior simplified valve model. Initially, a force is exerted
into the tip of the valve during T seconds. From t = 0 to
t = 1s, the force linearly increases from zero to |Fx | and
then it remains constant until T = 1.5s. Input parameters
are the following: Applied Force Fx = 150mN, Simulation
time T = 1.5s, Elastic Modulus (E) = 2.15x106 Pa, Poisson
Ratio ν = 0.47 and density of the fluid ρs = 1070 mkg3 . All
nodes of the superior tips are fixed to the top wall and have
zero displacement and velocity. Output values measured
in this test are: Von Misses Stress, execution time and
displacement measured that has to be lower than h to prevent
node collisions. Nine different mesh sizes (see Fig. A1 in
complementary appendix) are tested in order to identify the
most appropriate mesh to implement for future simulations.
Configuration S9 is considered as the more complex and
finest mesh in this test. All the remaining configurations are
compared against S9 measuring their absolute and relative
error with respect to it. Table 2 contains the information of
all meshes and their respective results. Displacement of the
valve is measured from the top wall until the lowest tip of the
valve. According to Table 2, S9 is the finest mesh with the
most considerable number of elements and nodes, this lead to
obtain more precise results in the Von Misses Stress (VMS)
and displacement measures. Nevertheless, S9 is formed by a
really heavy mesh, that if it is merely consider this structural
without an ICFD or a FSI analysis, it required 20 minutes to
finish calculations only for T = 1.5s.
Seeking to find a reliable result correlated to the ones
found in S9, the first two configurations S1 and S2 can
be omitted because the displacement obtained is practically
twice than S9 and the VMS is less than half of S9. On
the other hand, S3 shows a lower value in VMS, and the
displacement observed is greater than h, for these reasons,
it is also rejected. Regarding computational time, S7 and S8
are rejected because they equally have a high execution time
compare to other alternatives. Even when S4, S5 and S6 have
similar results, S6 is eliminated due to the topology of the
mesh, trying to keep one unique shape on the mesh and not
combining them with others. Finally, S4 and S5 represent
the best options considering that the values measured are
close enough to S6 and S7; the small difference in the
displacement measured represent a key factor to consider
when choosing the final model. After several attempts to
simulate a FSI, it is observed that the closest the valves are
to each other (specifically the nodes on the tips) the greater
the probabilities are than the simulations fails to continue
and to finish. Once both valves are placed in the domain,
the distance between superior and inferior valve tips using
S4 is only 3.8mm, whilst using S5 the gap is 6mm. Taking
in consideration these gaps the final model to use in future
simulations is configuration S5 (see Fig. 3, bottom).
2.1.2 Fluid Mesh
The second validation test is similar to the previous one
with the main difference that this test uses a FSI approach.
F5
S5
Fig. 3. Selected Meshes. Top image represents a part of the fluid
domain mesh where sections A and B can be appreciated. Bottom
image represents a small part of the solid domain mesh.
The fluid domain (Ω f ) is divided into two nodes sections:
a section A representing the nodes located before and after
the valves, these zones contains fewer nodes than the other
section because the information measured in this zone is not
that relevant for this study. On the other hand, a section B
is created by selecting a rectangular area that represents the
intermediate zone where valves are placed; in this particular
zone there is a significant quantity of nodes in order to obtain
and measure the most accurate values of the phenomena
occurring in this area. Eight different configurations are
tested, and they can be seen in Fig. A2 (in complementary
appendix). Five of them contains the section B with the
rectangular area, and in the rest of them there is only an
increment in the number of nodes for the entire fluid domain.
Input fluid mechanical properties for this simulation are the
following: (Ω f ) = { 0.09641 m/s, 3.8 x10− 5m3 , 0.666
Hz, 1000 kg/m3 , 0.001 Pa · s } and (Ωs ) = { 0.0004 m,
0.26 m, 2.15 x106 Pa, 1070 kg/m3 , 0.47 }. Finally, the
output parameters to measure and to compare are: maximum
velocity in X − plane, pressure before and after the valves
(at -5h and 5h distance from the center), VMS at the superior
valve and execution time. Considering a period T = 1.5015s,
these FSI simulations are carried out only for a t = 0.4s.
Table 3 contains the information of all meshes and their
results.
Following the same criteria than before, the last
configuration is also selected as the most precise due to the
number of elements and nodes on it. Section B in these tests
represents a crucial part in calculations, and this section is
merely included from configurations F1 to F5. F1 contains
the coarser mesh, having only 10 nodes in height and 50
in semi-length for the section A and it also has the biggest
internal mesh size for the section B. On the other hand, F5
contains twice the nodes in height and semi-length than F1
but it has the same internal mesh size. From F6 to F8
there is no section B because they already have three or
four times the number of nodes than previous configurations.
Regarding the measurements, configurations F3, F4, F6 and
F7 are neglected due to the significant computational time
required to finish calculations. Results of configurations F1
and F2 are close to F5 even when they have less amount of
nodes but similar time of execution . Nevertheless, absolute
4 Copyright
c by ASME
 Table 2. Solid Mesh Validation Test Comparisons. Configuration S5 is the mesh selected. |Fx | = 150mN
Mesh No. Shell No. VMS Max Value Displacement Execution Absolute Relative
Case
Size Elements Nodes [v-m] [m] Time Error Error

S1 0.0005 108 122 3.25E+04 0.0229 12 sec 4.696E+04 0.591

S2 0.0004 134 148 4.05E+04 0.0221 12 sec 3.896E+04 0.490
S3 0.0002 528 411 5.61E+04 0.0151 23 sec 2.336E+04 0.294
S4 0.00015 1056 720 7.04E+04 0.0131 28 sec 9.060E+03 0.114
S5 0.0001 2588 1574 7.03E+04 0.0120 58 sec 9.136E+03 0.115
S6 S5 + Triangle Mesh 7764 4154 7.06E+04 0.0120 2 min 44 sec 8.860E+03 0.112
S7 S5 + Hexagonal Mesh 7764 8307 7.01E+04 0.0122 4 min 50 sec 9.360E+03 0.118
S8 S5 + Hexagonal + Triangle 31056 16071 7.70E+04 0.0123 11 min 9 sec 2.470E+03 0.031
S9 S5 + Hexagonal + Hexagonal 31056 32133 7.95E+04 0.0122 20 min 56 sec 0.000E+00 0.000

Table 3. Fluid Mesh Validation Test comparisons. Configuration F5 is the mesh selected.
Nodes Nodes Number Max Pressure Pressure Max Execution Absolute Relative
Case Section A Section B Surface Velocity X Before After VMS
Time Error Error
(Height x Semi-length) Internal Mesh Nodes [m/s] [Pa] [Pa] [v-m]

F1 10 x 50 5.00E-04 1320 2.15E-01 34.40 7.31 8.276E+04 1 hr 41 min 2.661E+03 0.03320

F2 10 x 50 4.00E-04 1320 2.24E-01 32.30 6.98 7.939E+04 1 hr 30 min 7.132E+02 0.00890
F3 10 x 50 2.00E-04 1320 2.22E-01 37.40 8.02 7.933E+04 2 hr 53 min 7.730E+02 0.00964
F4 10 x 50 1.00E-04 1320 2.15E-01 32.60 7.22 7.807E+04 7 hr 54 min 2.033E+03 0.02536
F5 20x100 5.00E-04 1500 2.18E-01 31.70 7.24 8.067E+04 1 hr 47 min 5.735E+02 0.00716
F6 30x200 NO 1920 2.18E-01 33.80 7.43 8.454E+04 4 hr 57 min 4.441E+03 0.05542
F7 30x300 NO 2320 2.18E-01 35.40 7.63 7.802E+04 4 hr 12 min 2.081E+03 0.02596
F8 40x500 NO 3140 2.26E-01 34.80 7.65 8.010E+04 9 hr 12 min 0.00 0.00

and relative errors of F5 against F8 are lower than the others
two options. Concluding, future models are constructed by
using the fluid configuration F5 (see Fig. 3, top).
2.1.3 Time Step Size
Once the mesh size for both domains is selected, the
conclusive test is to choose the most appropriate value for
the Time Step Size (tsz ). Once more, a FSI simulation is
conducted for a period of T = 1.502s. If a high value is
selected, the results obtained are inaccurate. On the other
side, the lower the value the greater the computational time
and accuracy of the model will have. Initially, the established
threshold is 0.0001 < tsz < 0.008; however, after some
attempts all cases using a tsz greater than 0.001 are unable to
exceed 3 minutes of execution time. Therefore, the threshold
is shrunk to 0.0001 < tsz < 0.001, and the results can be
appreciated in Table 4. Output parameters measured are
velocity in X − plane and vorticity in Z − plane.
The results are compared with the finest tsz = 0.0001
in different time moments. Nevertheless, selection of the
time step is directly affected on the specific phenomenon
analyzed. By carrying out this validation test, it can be
concluded that the same time step size does not work for
all cases but only for a few of them. Reaching a complete
simulation for this specific E and period T was only possible
by selecting T S2. The period configured is unreached any
other time step size. In other scenarios with different periods,
velocities or Es, time step TS2 may be unable to complete
the simulation time and it requires another value to finish.
For this reason, the conclusion of this test is to exclusively
provide a threshold of functional values to select within the
range of 0.0004 < tsz < 0.0009 for future simulations in the
data matrix. Values within this range are able to complete
or at least achieve more than 50% of the period configured
for the simulation time. This 50% of simulation time is
enough to observe the behavior of the valve when opening
and closing.
2.2 Parametric Study
After the first validation tests give the general idea
on how FSI works, it is necessary to comprehend how a
cardiac valve behaves under different conditions, not only
by observing changes in the fluid but the solid properties as
well. This approach is proposed to be done by conducting
a parametric study. Two elements are established to be
changed in this parametric study. The first one is the
elastic modulus E within Ωs and the second represents the
frequency of the fluid f within Ω f . The proposal is to obtain
45 different combinations retrieved from five variations in
E and nine variations in f . The models obtained from the
validation tests are utilized for this parametric test, however,
considering than previous validation test are only tested for
one specific E, a new structural analysis is done for each of
the new four variations in E.

5 Copyright
c by ASME
 Table 4. Time Step validation test, using configuration S5 and F5 previously selected. The simulation time is set to T = 1.5015s.
Time Step Simulation Vorticity Z Velocity in X Vorticity Z Velocity in X Vorticity Z Velocity in X Execution Absolute Relative
TS Size Time Reached at 0.2 s at 0.2 s at 0.278 s at 0.278 s at 0.825 s at 0.825 s Time
Error Error
[s] [s] [s−1 ] [m/s] [s−1 ] [m/s] [s−1 ] [m/s] [s]

TS1 1.00E-03 0.236 8.069E+03 0.0978 - - - - 2 hr 37 min 2.685E+03 0.499

TS2 8.00E-04 1.5015 6.188E+03 0.1018 2.320E+03 0.2325 1.148E+03 0.3485 15 hr 46 min 1.661E+03 0.243
TS3 6.00E-04 0.8304 2.325E+03 0.0964 4.562E+03 0.2195 1.278E+03 0.3556 12 hr 24 min 6.158E+03 0.899
TS4 5.00E-04 0.206 1.745E+03 0.0973 - - - - 6 hr 28 min 3.639E+03 0.676
TS5 4.00E-04 0.8252 1.740E+03 0.1004 2.695E+03 0.2306 6.172E+03 0.3523 15 hr 41 min 4.876E+03 0.712
TS6 3.00E-04 0.9897 1.451E+03 0.0954 1.447E+03 0.2197 1.814E+03 0.3721 1 d 3 hr 36 min 3.949E+03 0.577
TS7 2.00E-04 0.1986 1.167E+03 0.1005 - - - - 17 hr 4.217E+03 0.783
TS8 1.00E-04 0.2785 5.384E+03 0.2312 1.463E+03 0.2213 - - 1 d 15 hr 3 min 0.00 0.000

Solid Domain Table 5. Velocities used for the Parametric Study

(Ωs) Velocity
E - Elastic Frequency Period
Modulus Magnitude
[Hz] [s] [m/s]

j=5 1.000 1.000 0.145

Fluid Domain
0.900 1.111 0.130
Aop - Opening
(Ωf) 0.800 1.250 0.116
i=9

Area
0.700 1.429 0.101
f - frequency ΔD - Pressure
U - velocity Difference 0.666 1.502 0.097
0.600 1.667 0.087
Fig. 4. Data Matrix containing 45 combinations between Ω f and 0.500 2.000 0.073
Ωs . The parameters adjusted are the E and the frequency and 0.400 2.500 0.058
velocity of the fluid. 0.333 3.003 0.048

2.2.1 Parametric Structural Analysis for Valves Models

This study is conducted with the aim of obtaining the
necessary models to adopt for each valve configuration in
the parametric study. The objective is to find the necessary
force required to measure a displacement in the valves to
approximately h = 15mm. The configuration of this test
is exactly the same than the solid validation test, with the
unique difference that the force applied in the tip has a period
of T = 3s. The displacement observed in the y − plane has
to be the closest but lower to 15mm, otherwise, a collision
between them occurs and this avoids the FSI simulation to
properly continue and complete the calculation process. The
remaining input parameters such as, ρs , ν and inlet force
curve are the same as in the solid validation test. For the first
analysis the E is chosen to be E = 2.15x106 Pa; for these new
tests, the range is established to have two greater and two
lower values than the original. As result of this, E is varied
as follows: 1x105 , 1x106 , 2.15x106 , 1x106.5 (3.16x106 ) and
1x107 [Pa].
2.2.2 Inlet Velocity Curves
All the 45 combinations assembled in a data matrix
share the same V , ρ f , µ, ν, ρs , d and l. Considering
five different values for the E, the data matrix is also
constructed by changing velocity and period of the fluid
into nine different variations. Frequencies selected are:
[0.333, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.666, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1] Hz.
Inlet velocity magnitude of each FSI simulation is
calculated by using Eq. (3) and they are registered in Table 5.
Time and velocity magnitude of each case are then multiplied
to the normalized curve proposed in Fig. 2.
3 Experimental Results
This section shows the results of the parametric study
and the parametric structural analysis of each E variation.
Moreover, this section includes the new approach proposed
to handle with these kind of problems, not only the
methodology of the same but the results as well.
3.1 FSI Results
Using all the models gathered from the validation test,
it is possible to obtain the first attempt of the FSI approach.
Results observed in this first analysis, are close correlated
with the ones observed in the experimental. In Fig. 5, a
complete simulation time is shown and the behavior of the
valves can be appreciated. For all cases the inlet curve
used is designed in such a way that back-flow behavior is
avoided and only a correct functionality can be observed.
According to the results shown in Duran-Hernandez [26],
the FSI simulation is successfully replicated, with slight
differences that are produced due to the 2D simplification,
however, the behavior observed qualitative represents the
phenomena desired. Furthermore, it was detected that
when observing correct functionality in the simulation, two
situations may happen: a symmetrical and asymmetrical

6 Copyright
c by ASME
 Fig. 5. Results obtained from the first FSI simulation. Nine different stages are shown with respect to Vx .

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time [t/T]

Fig. 6. Input and output parameters observed during the first FSI simulation. Top represents Flow Rate, Center is ∆D and Bottom is Aop .
All values are normalized. Green marks represent the nine stages selected in Fig. 5.

return. Symmetrical return is when both valves go back to valve. Input (Flow Rate) and output parameters (Aop and
their initial position, i.e., the closest to y = 0 ( see Fig. 5, ∆D) of Fig. 5 can be seen in Fig. 6. Flow Rate is obtained by
last three stages ). On the other hand, the asymmetrical Eq. (4).
return represents the opposite; when diastole occurs any of m3
the valves do not return to their initial position and remains FR = Uhw[ ] (4)
s
close to the latest position during systole and the other valve
moves up/down until the tip reaches any part of the other

7 Copyright
c by ASME
 Table 6. Displacement of each E under different forces applied. Time= 0 sec Time= 1 sec
0.015
Elasticity Force Displacement 0.01
0.005
Modulus Applied Measured 0

Y-Coordinates [m]
[Pa] [mN] [mm] -0.005
-0.01
-0.015
1x105 4.9 0.290 Time= 2 sec Time= 3 sec
0.015
1x106 53.0 0.163 0.01
0.005
2.15x106 104.2 0.162
0
3.16x106 163.0 0.220 -0.005
-0.01
1x107 496.0 0.156 -0.015
-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
X-Coordinates [m]
1.5x106 84.0 0.452
E1e5 E1e6 E215e6 E316e6 E1e7 VE150e6 VE150e7
1.5x107 780.0 0.333

Fig. 7. Displacement observed in valves during T = 3s.

3.2 Structural Analysis for Valves Modeling
This analysis helps to comprehend how the design
behaves under different force loads with different hardness.
Whether the hardness increases so it does the force required
to achieve the desired displacement in the valve. In
difference to the previous structural analysis conducted in
the solid validation test, the principal objective is to find what
force is needed in order to obtain a distance from y = 0 to the
tip of the valve bigger than 0.15mm. Consequently, once both
valves are put together in the domain, the distance between
them is approximately bigger than 0.3mm. Table 6 shows
the results obtained after a simulation time of T = 3s in every
case. Last two cases represent the configuration for verifying
the model, and these two E are located outside the original
matrix proposed.
The behavior of each case can be appreciated in Fig. 7
along four time stages between the period selected. Finally,
Fig. 8 shows these frequencies increment throughout the
simulation time. When the lowest E is tested, it merely
presents a few oscillation moments whereas the highest
modulus repeats this oscillation more than 20 times but with
lower amplitude. Whether the E increases, so it does the
oscillation of the valves and the final location of all them
remains between the desired distances. In all cases the settle
time is a consequence of the inlet curve used that goes from 0
to the applied force in a constant slope during the first second
and stays constant until it reaches the desired period.
3.3 System Identification Method
The essential core of this paper is to present an
alternative method that helps researchers to replicate the
closest results as possible as if they we were doing a FSI
simulation. The advantages of this method lies in skipping
many details required to configure for the simulation
namely, geometry, boundary conditions, mesh quality and
its topology and mainly, the highest computational time
that these approaches require to accomplish short simulation
times.
In order to do so, the alternative approach to deal with
fluid mechanics simulations is proposed by means of SI
methods. These systems allow estimating an output handling
the information of past and future events on the input.
Working as a black box, these methods construct a general
polynomial function based on two sets of coefficients, and
according to the order of the system k, this polynomial will
have bk and ak , the numerator and denominator coefficients,
respectively.
The SI model proposed in this paper is an
AutoRegressive eXogenous (ARX) method using a
Single-Input Single-Output (SISO) system that considers
each inlet flow rate as one input and each Aop or ∆D as
one output. In order to estimate a general model for all
the combinations presented in the parametric study, the
following procedure is presented:
+ For each E:
– The output n only corresponds to the n input.
– Nine models are obtained from one E.
– Once these nine models are obtained, the average
value of each coefficient is taken to obtain a
general polynomial function for this E.
Finally, each one of these five general polynomial
functions is able of reconstructing each of the nine cases
of their respective E. At the end, we have five transfer
functions for Aop and five for ∆D that follows the next
structure proposed by [27].
B(s)
ARX(s) = (5)
1 − [A(s)]
where, B(s) and A(s) represent the continuous time
coefficients for the numerator and denominator respectively.
The unitary element in the denominator represents an
addition of an extra k +1 coefficient. All the A(s) coefficients
are multiplied by a negative factor. This means that if the
order system k = 2, the denominator will have a3, −a2, −a1
and −a0 coefficients.

8 Copyright
c by ASME
 E1e5 E1e6
0.015
E1e5 F= 4.93mN E1e6 F= 53mN
0.005
-0.005
-0.015
Displacement [m]

E215e6 E316e6
0.015
E2.15e6 F= 104.2mN E3.16e6 F= 163mN
0.005
-0.005
-0.015
E1e7 VE150e6 and VE150e7
0.015
E1e7 F= 496mN E1.5e6 F= 84mN
0.005 E1.5e7 F= 780mN

-0.005
-0.015
0 1 2 30 1 2 3
Time [sec]
Fig. 8. Oscillation observed within the valves. Transient and stationary part can be observed. Last figure contains verification test models

Data E215e6 T= 1.000 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.111 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.000 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.111 sec
200 0.04
0 0.02
-200 Original Reconstructed Original Reconstructed 0
-400 -0.02
Data E215e6 T= 1.250 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.428 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.250 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.428 sec
200 0.04
Aop Amplitude

0 0.02
DP Amplitude

-200 Original Reconstructed Original Reconstructed 0

-400 -0.02
Data E215e6 T= 1.502 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.667 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.502 sec Data E215e6 T= 1.667 sec
200 0.04
0 0.02
-200 Original Reconstructed Original Reconstructed 0
-400 -0.02
Data E215e6 T= 2.000 sec Data E215e6 T= 2.500 sec Data E215e6 T= 2.000 sec 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
200 0.04
0 0.02
-200 Original Reconstructed 0
-400 -0.02
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time/T Time/T
Original Reconstructed Original Reconstructed

Fig. 9. Output ∆D for E = 2.15x106 . Only one period is rejected Fig. 10. Output Aop for E = 2.15x106 . Two periods are rejected
for this case. for this case.

Before obtaining the final coefficients for each E, it slight change in the estimation process and specifying that
is necessary to test if all the nine periods chosen are m = 2 and n = 3 , a biproper transfer function conversion
representing the same event required to measure at the is obtained, this is m = n. This allows obtaining better
output. This is accomplished by obtaining a bode diagram estimations in Aop output. The case of ∆D does not present
and zero and poles diagram for each period and E. By doing a remarkable difference in estimation when applying this
these two diagrams it is possible to reject 1, 2 or 3 periods in change, thus we leave the estimation with the original k = 2
every E. One example of this process is shown in Fig. B1 and the strictly proper transfer function for this output.
and Fig. B2 in the complementary appendix. Once the coefficients are identified in each E, an average
Initially, both cases (Aop and ∆D) are tested with the value of all them is obtained to have a single polynomial
same system order m = n = 2, i.e., two coefficients for bm function for each E. This single polynomial function is tested
and an . This leads to have a strictly proper transfer function on the reconstruction of the original nine output signals that
conversion where m < n. However, by implementing a corresponds to every period. Two sets of results are also

9 Copyright
c by ASME
 Table 7. Average coefficients obtained for ∆D. System order m = n = 2. Coefficients follow Eq. (5)

∆D Parametric Study Modulus Verification Modulus

Coefficients 1e5 [Pa] 1e6 [Pa] 2.15e6 [Pa] 3.16e6 [Pa] 1e7 [Pa] 1.5e6 [Pa] 1.5e7 [Pa]

b1 -7.952E+07 -8.362E+07 -7.884E+07 -8.724E+07 -6.728E+07 -8.195E+07 -6.189E+07

b0 7.951E+07 8.359E+07 7.878E+07 8.717E+07 6.718E+07 8.191E+07 6.174E+07

a1 0.0327 0.0126 0.0709 0.1989 0.7043 0.0742 1.0566

a0 0.3883 0.4081 0.3636 0.2223 -0.1399 0.3508 -0.4242

Table 8. Average coefficients obtained for Aop . System order m = 2, n = 3. Coefficients follow Eq. (5)

Aop Parametric Study Modulus Verification Modulus

Coefficients 1e5 [Pa] 1e6 [Pa] 2.15e6 [Pa] 3.16e6 [Pa] 1e7 [Pa] 1.5e6 [Pa] 1.5e7 [Pa]

b2 3.550E+03 6.499E+03 6.987E+03 6.957E+03 6.837E+02 5.810E+03 -8.120E+02

b1 -7.092E+03 -1.308E+04 -1.413E+04 -1.408E+04 -1.504E+03 -1.171E+04 1.412E+03
b0 3.542E+03 6.584E+03 7.145E+03 7.124E+03 8.239E+02 5.901E+03 -5.948E+02

a1 0.9402 1.1460 1.1277 1.1663 1.1371 1.0857 1.2199

a0 0.0594 -0.1656 -0.1652 -0.2119 -0.1885 -0.1094 -0.2984

shown in Fig. 9 and 10. They correspond to the first
E used to configure the FSI simulation and compare the
results with the experimental data found in [5]. For this
case, the use of the bode and zero-poles diagrams let us
know that the last period in ∆D does not correspond to the
output behavior expected. In the case of Aop , the last two
periods are also rejected under the same criteria. The average
coefficients found for each E are listed in Table 7 and Table 8.
The entire results of the parametric study are shown in the
complementary appendix C.
In the figures showing the ∆D and Aop estimation, it can
be appreciated that not all curves in red are reaching the final
simulation time; this is because for that specific case the
simulation time is uncompleted. However, the tsz used for
that same case was the only one to be able of accomplishing
the longest simulation time. On the other hand, blue (black
for verification results) curves are the reconstruction curves
using the SI model, and the sudden stop in some of the
figures is a consequence of the high noise percentage found
in the original output signal. Even after performing a signal
filtering, this noise is unable to be rejected. For these reasons,
estimation is merely conducted until before the significant
noise occurs or when the simulation stopped.
3.3.1 Extra Cases - Model Validation -
Finally, the last step is the model validation by using
information that is originally unconsidered within the matrix.
In order to do so, a fitting curve that contains previous
average coefficients is used to determine the interpolated
points to calculate the respective coefficients for the desired
new parameters.
The simulation parameters are the same used in previous
results: the selected solid and fluid mesh size for the new
desired Es, the order system m = n = 2 for ∆D and m = 2, n =
3 for Aop . Results obtained during the structural analysis
are additionally included in Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Table 6. The
estimated output for Aop and ∆D follow the same tendency
to those in the parametric study. Using different orders
improved the signal for Aop but not for ∆D, which uses the
original method. Table ?? shows the results obtained for
these simulation tests.
Results found for the internal desired E located between
the two first modulus corresponds to Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 and
those outside the matrix corresponds to Fig. 13 and Fig. 14.
Coefficients found for these cases are also shown in Table 7
and Table 8 In general terms, it is clearly evident that this
method is limited when estimating ∆D. Conditions inside the
matrix are better estimated for both outputs than the cases
that require an extrapolation for estimation.
In this manner, this model is only suitable for specific
thresholds of conditions and parameters. Another limitation
is the quality of the estimation depends completely on
the input signal. The noise represents another factor that
affects the comparison between the original output with the
estimated signal, whether is a numerical or physiological
noise; the current model is incapable to estimate under those
conditions with accuracy. For these reasons, it is necessary
to perform a signal filtering before generating the model and
calculate the respective coefficients taking in consideration
that this filter treats only with the noise and not affecting the
initial phenomena.
4 Conclusions
The main contribution of this paper is to propose
an alternative to the FSI method essentially involve into
solving cardiac valve modeling problems. This alternative
proposed is a System Identification method, which is not
only faster but also avoids the necessity of configuring a
considerable number of parameters as it is required for
instance in lumped models such as the Windkessel. By

10 Copyright
c by ASME
 Data E150e6 T0 833 sec Data E150e7 T0 833 sec
300 300
0 0
-300 -300
-600 -600
Data E150e6 T0 900 sec Data E150e7 T0 900 sec
DP Amplitude

DP Amplitude
300 300
0 0
-300 -300
-600 -600
Data E150e6 T1 2005 sec Data E150e7 T1 2005 sec
300 300
0 0
-300 -300
-600 -600
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time/T Time/T
Original Validated Original Validated

Fig. 11. Validation results in pressure difference measured for Fig. 13. Validation results in pressure difference measured for
E = 1.5x106 Pa for 3 periods. E = 1.5x107 Pa for 3 periods.

Data E150e6 T0 833 sec Data E150e7 T0 833 sec

0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0 0
-0.02 -0.02
Data E150e6 T0 900 sec Data E150e7 T0 900 sec
Aop Amplitude

Aop Amplitude
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0 0
-0.02 -0.02
Data E150e6 T1 2005 sec Data E150e7 T1 2005 sec
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0 0
-0.02 -0.02
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time/T Time/T
Original Validated Original Validated

Fig. 12. Validation results in opening Area measured for Fig. 14. Validation results in opening Area measured for
E = 1.5x106 Pa for 3 periods. E = 1.5x107 Pa for 3 periods.

means of polynomial functions, SI is able to overcome the
significant computational cost disadvantage and simulation
time required by FSI. The simulations reported represent
a simplification of the experimental setup previously
mentioned. The current model is a 2D test that contains
as outputs the opening area and pressure difference of the
valves.
The results obtained from the first simulation allowed
to infer the design of the input curve is decisive in seek
of obtaining results as closer as possible to those reported
experimentally. The dimensionality simplification equally
produces a minor difference that involves the inlet volumetric
flow. For our case, it is only transmitted along the length
and height of the channel and not in the width as the
experimental setup, giving as a result, small numerical
differences in measurements. In addition, the experimental
is carried out for a large number of cycles, and at the
end the average value of all cycles is used to obtain a
unique curve representing only one cycle; this also helped
to reduce possible measurement noise in the signals. On
the contrary, the simulations conducted were merely possible
to carry out for a single cardiac cycle, hence, obtaining an
average value of these signals is not possible and therefore
there is more noise observed in the outputs, mainly in
the pressure difference. These smoothness variations are
attacked through a previous signal filtering to use the cleanest
signal as possible for the input required by the SI model.
Regarding the parametric study, generating a
considerable number of variations helped to understand the
relevance of the validation test for the meshes and the time
step sizes. For each variation, the mesh played an essential
role in accomplish a complete simulation time; moreover,
it was discovered that using the same time step size does
not work for all cases. Therefore, establishing a range of
time steps sizes with a similar order of magnitude, allowed
to complete the entire study and to obtain results that were
remarkably similar in order of magnitude in comparison to
the initially proved case. Taking advantage of the software
capabilities to split the job into every processor for handling
a locally parallel task helped to considerably reduce the
necessary time to complete all cases. For example, if the
simulation with the longest period (T = 3s) is conducted

11 Copyright

c by ASME
by using a regular shared memory process, the simulation
time is reached until 8 or 9 days of calculations, whilst
using massive parallel processing the simulation time is
accomplished after 1 to 1.5 days approximately. These
reductions in computational time represent more than 80%
of the time required by SMP, therefore, when SMP is
scarcely able to conclude 1 case in a week, MPP finishes
4 or 5 cases in a similar time. Finally, with respect to the
results obtained for the SI model from a SISO system, by
verifying each of these polynomial functions, more than
90% of them is capable of estimating the cases needed in
the parametric study. This method uses coefficients to create
transfer functions for every case proposed in methodology,
and its computational complexity is low, where the order
system is equal to k = 2 for both outputs. Whilst doing a
FSI requires days, this method is able to obtain results of the
45 combinations in less than 30 minutes; this time includes
not only the coefficients calculations but the post-processing
of all data generated by the FSI simulations, the data matrix
creation and the signal filtering, among other steps as
well. Comparing the graphs of each output, the results are
significantly correlated in most cases, however this method
only considers linear approaches. Employing a non-linear
approach may lead to substantially improve these results.
5 Discussions
Addressing the problem of detecting malfunctions in
the cardiac valves, the alternatives that have been proposed
as the replacement of the already existing Biological Heart
Valves, the Mechanical valves are the best option due to
the great possibility of continuous improvement in design
through the use of a CAD software. This approach
helps to reduce many of the possible limitations that has
its counterpart, however this same advantage represents a
limitation when it comes to performing many repetitions of
the same design under different conditions in the fluid and
solid domain. The proposed method is capable to estimate
the behavior of both selected output phenomena, with the
significant advantage that there is no need to consider
previous knowledge of the expected output. Nevertheless,
it is known that in order to develop a good SI model, it is
necessary to have a previously simulated results database to
be used to prepare the model and then obtain the polynomial
coefficients before even being able to validate new design
variations. The method additionally requires the signals
to be as clean as possible to get closest to the estimation
desired, otherwise the noise produces poor estimations. In
addition, it is necessary to provide a signal that consists
of a proper number of samples to increase the precision
of the model, and one of the advantages of using a FEM
software is that you can easily adjust the number of samples
wanted at the output. Regarding validation, the accuracy
of estimation decreases when the parameters handled are in
places where an extrapolation is required; on the contrary,
when interpolation is used in intermediate areas of the data
matrix, the estimation is still remarkably accurate. As
possible future work, it is proposed to tackle a diverse
12
approach by equally using a SI model, and this considers
to be able to estimate results when you possess previous
knowledge of the expected output. This is in order to
recognize a possible standard deviation when you have a
measurement of the behavior of an existing valve and then
know if its operation is deviating from the expected value
and then adjust what is necessary or to a design change
requirement.
References
[1] Peña Pérez, N., 2016. “Windkessel modeling of the human
arterial system”. B.S. thesis.
[2] Stijnen, J., De Hart, J., Bovendeerd, P., and Van de Vosse,
F., 2004. “Evaluation of a fictitious domain method for
predicting dynamic response of mechanical heart valves”.
Journal of Fluids and Structures, 19(6), pp. 835–850.
[3] Yoganathan, A. P., He, Z., and Casey Jones, S., 2004. “Fluid
mechanics of heart valves”. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng., 6,
pp. 331–362.
[4] López-Zazueta, A., Ledesma-Alonso, R., Guzman, J., and
Zenit, R., 2011. “Study of the velocity and strain fields
in the flow through prosthetic heart valves”. Journal of
biomechanical engineering, 133(12), p. 121003.
[5] Ledesma-Alonso, R., Guzmán, J., and Zenit, R., 2014.
“Experimental study of a model valve with flexible leaflets
in a pulsatile flow”. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 739,
pp. 338–362.
[6] King, M., Corden, J., David, T., and Fisher, J., 1996. “A
three-dimensional, time-dependent analysis of flow through a
bileaflet mechanical heart valve: comparison of experimental
and numerical results”. Journal of biomechanics, 29(5),
pp. 609–618.
[7] Krafczyk, M., Cerrolaza, M., Schulz, M., and Rank, E. .,
1998. “Analysis of 3d transient blood flow passing through an
artificial aortic valve by lattice–boltzmann methods”. Journal
of Biomechanics, 31(5), pp. 453–462.
[8] Lemmon, J. D., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2000.
“Three-dimensional computational model of left heart
diastolic function with fluid–structure interaction”. Journal
of biomechanical engineering, 122(2), pp. 109–117.
[9] Bluestein, D., Li, Y., and Krukenkamp, I., 2002. “Free
emboli formation in the wake of bi-leaflet mechanical heart
valves and the effects of implantation techniques”. Journal of
biomechanics, 35(12), pp. 1533–1540.
[10] Baccani, B., Domenichini, F., and Pedrizzetti, G., 2003.
“Model and influence of mitral valve opening during the
left ventricular filling”. Journal of biomechanics, 36(3),
pp. 355–361.
[11] Khalili, F., Gamage, P. T., and Mansy, H., 2018.
“Prediction of turbulent shear stresses through dysfunctional
bileaflet mechanical heart valves using computational fluid
dynamics”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.03361.
[12] Horsten, J. B. A. M., 1990. “On the analysis of moving heart
valves: a numerical fluid-structure interaction model”. PhD
thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
[13] De Hart, J., Peters, G. W., Schreurs, P. J., and Baaijens,
F. P., 2000. “A two-dimensional fluid–structure interaction
model of the aortic value”. Journal of biomechanics, 33(9),
pp. 1079–1088.
[14] De Hart, J., Peters, G., Schreurs, P., and Baaijens, F., 2003. “A
three-dimensional computational analysis of fluid–structure
Copyright
c by ASME
 interaction in the aortic valve”. Journal of biomechanics,
36(1), pp. 103–112.
[15] Peskin, C. S., 1972. “Flow patterns around heart valves: a
numerical method”. Journal of computational physics, 10(2),
pp. 252–271.
[16] Wang, Z., Yuan, Q., Shen, B., Tang, D., and Zhang,
X., 2016. “Mathmatic abstraction for fluid-structure
interaction analysis of bioprosthetic heart valves with
immersed boundary method”. DEStech Transactions on
Engineering and Technology Research(mcemic).
[17] Kamensky, D., Hsu, M.-C., Schillinger, D., Evans, J. A.,
Aggarwal, A., Bazilevs, Y., Sacks, M. S., and Hughes,
T. J., 2015. “An immersogeometric variational framework
for fluid–structure interaction: Application to bioprosthetic
heart valves”. Computer methods in applied mechanics and
engineering, 284, pp. 1005–1053.
[18] Xu, F., Morganti, S., Zakerzadeh, R., Kamensky, D.,
Auricchio, F., Reali, A., Hughes, T. J., Sacks, M. S., and Hsu,
M.-C., 2018. “A framework for designing patient-specific
bioprosthetic heart valves using immersogeometric
fluid–structure interaction analysis”. International journal
for numerical methods in biomedical engineering, 34(4),
p. e2938.
[19] Catanho, M., Sinha, M., and Vijayan, V., 2012. “Model of
aortic blood flow using the windkessel effect”. University of
California of San Diago, San Diago.
[20] Westerhof, N., Lankhaar, J.-W., and Westerhof, B. E., 2009.
“The arterial windkessel”. Medical & biological engineering
& computing, 47(2), pp. 131–141.
[21] Xu, P., Liu, X., Zhang, H., Ghista, D., Zhang, D., Shi, C., and
Huang, W., 2018. “Assessment of boundary conditions for
cfd simulation in human carotid artery”. Biomechanics and
modeling in mechanobiology, pp. 1–17.
[22] Pant, S., Corsini, C., Baker, C., Hsia, T.-Y., Pennati, G.,
Vignon-Clementel, I. E., of Congenital Hearts Alliance
(MOCHA) Investigators, M., et al., 2016. “Data assimilation
and modelling of patient-specific single-ventricle physiology
with and without valve regurgitation”. Journal of
biomechanics, 49(11), pp. 2162–2173.
[23] Huang, H., Shu, Z., Song, B., Ji, L., and Zhu, N., 2019.
“Modeling left ventricular dynamics using a switched system
approach based on a modified atrioventricular piston unit”.
Medical engineering & physics, 63, pp. 42–49.
[24] Pironet, A., Dauby, P. C., Chase, J. G., Docherty, P. D.,
Revie, J. A., and Desaive, T., 2016. “Structural identifiability
analysis of a cardiovascular system model”. Medical
engineering & physics, 38(5), pp. 433–441.
[25] Duran-Hernandez, C., Ledesma-Alonso, R., Etcheverry, G.,
and Perez-Santiago, R., 2018. “Aerodynamic coefficient
calculation of a sphere using incompressible computational
fluid dynamics method”. Technology, Science, and Culture:
A Global Vision, pp. 105–112.
[26] Duran-Hernandez, C., Perez-Santiago, R., Etcheverry, G.,
and Ledesma-Alonso, R., 2019. “Modeling of a simplified 2D
cardiac valve by means of system identification”. In Mexican
Conference on Pattern Recognition, Springer, p. Accepted
Paper.
[27] Ljung, L., 1987. System identification: theory for the user.
Prentice-hall.

13 Copyright
c by ASME