Joris Degroote

Prof. Joris Degroote

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2009 in Computers & Structures
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Joris DegrooteJoris Degroote
Joris Degroote
KBKlaus-Jürgen Bathe
Klaus-Jürgen Bathe
JVJan Vierendeels
Jan Vierendeels

6 October 2008 in Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PBPeter Bruggeman
Peter Bruggeman
JLJingjing Liu
Jingjing Liu
Joris DegrooteJoris Degroote
Joris Degroote
MKMichael G Kong
Michael G Kong
JVJan Vierendeels
Jan Vierendeels
CLChristophe Leys
Christophe Leys

1 December 2008 in Computers & Structures
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Joris DegrooteJoris Degroote
Joris Degroote
PBPeter Bruggeman
Peter Bruggeman
RHRobby Haelterman
Robby Haelterman
JVJan Vierendeels
Jan Vierendeels

1 April 2010 in Computers & Structures
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Joris DegrooteJoris Degroote
Joris Degroote
RHRobby Haelterman
Robby Haelterman
SASebastiaan Annerel
Sebastiaan Annerel
PBPeter Bruggeman
Peter Bruggeman
JVJan Vierendeels
Jan Vierendeels

1 February 2013 in Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DSDavid A. Steinman
David A. Steinman
YHYiemeng Hoi
Yiemeng Hoi
PFPaul Fahy
Paul Fahy
LMLiam Morris
Liam Morris
MWMichael T Walsh
Michael T Walsh
FLFrancis Loth
Francis Loth
Stimulated by a recent controversy regarding pressure drops predicted in a giant aneurysm with a proximal stenosis, the present study sought to assess variability in the prediction of pressures and flow by a wide variety of research groups. In phase I, lumen geometry, flow rates, and fluid properties were specified, leaving each research group to choose their solver, discretization, and solution strategies. Variability was assessed by having each group interpolate their results onto a standardized mesh and centerline. For phase II, a physical model of the geometry was constructed, from which pressure and flow rates were measured. Groups repeated their simulations using a geometry reconstructed from a micro-computed tomography (CT) scan of the physical model with the measured flow rates and fluid properties. Phase I results from 25 groups demonstrated remarkable consistency in the pressure patterns, with the majority predicting peak systolic pressure drops within 8% of each other. Aneurysm sac flow patterns were more variable with only a few groups reporting peak systolic flow instabilities owing to their use of high temporal resolutions. Variability for phase II was comparable, and the median predicted pressure drops were within a few millimeters of mercury of the measured values but only after accounting for submillimeter errors in the reconstruction of the life-sized flow model from micro-CT. In summary, pressure can be predicted with consistency by CFD across a wide range of solvers and solution strategies, but this may not hold true for specific flow patterns or derived quantities. Future challenges are needed and should focus on hemodynamic quantities thought to be of clinical interest.

14 July 2013 in Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Joris DegrooteJoris Degroote
Joris Degroote