site. It includes scaffold geometry verification to ensure that the fabrication process delivers the expected scaffold design. 42 Figure 32 PCL scaffold design specifications. 43 Figure 33 The of µCT-images (left) was segmented to obtain the scaffold geometry (right) within the raw data. 44 Figure 34 a) 3D CAD model of the scaffold. b) Side view. 45 Figure 35 Physical boundaries of the fluid volume mesh. 46 Figure 36 Wire representation of the fluid mesh to observe the adaptation of the element size towards the scaffold. 47 Figure 37 The local velocity (a) and WSS (b) values extracted in CFD-Post and then arranged and plotted by layers with a Matlab code. 49 Figure 38 Velocity profiles extracted from all scaffold levels. 50 Figure 39 Structural comparison between CAD (a) and a µCT-reconstructed scaffold (b). Cross-sections from planes A (i) and B (ii) show the internal spatial arrangement of fibres. The two scaffolds are compared at all layers so the structural limitations of the fabrication process can be identified. 52 Figure 310 Internal micro-structure shown at the cross-sections specified in Figure 39 of the sample with different fibre distribution from the other samples. 53 Figure 311 Scaffold irregularities due to the punching process in a reconstructed scaffold. 53 Figure 312 Velocity profile on a scaffold Fluid velocity data is extracted from line 1 which crosses a series of scaffold pores. 54 Figure 313 Effect of the element size within the scaffold region on the local fluid velocities. The data is extracted from line 1 shown in Figure 312. 55 Figure 314 Effect of the element size on the average WSS at the scaffold surface. 55 Figure 315 Effect of the element size outside the scaffold on the fluid velocities in the scaffold pores. Data extracted from line 1. 57 Figure 316 Line 2 from where the velocity values were extracted. 57
site. It includes scaffold geometry verification to ensure that the fabrication process delivers the expected scaffold design. 42 Figure 32 PCL scaffold design specifications. 43 Figure 33 The of µCT-images (left) was segmented to obtain the scaffold geometry (right) within the raw data. 44 Figure 34 a) 3D CAD model of the scaffold. b) Side view. 45 Figure 35 Physical boundaries of the fluid volume mesh. 46 Figure 36 Wire representation of the fluid mesh to observe the adaptation of the element size towards the scaffold. 47 Figure 37 The local velocity (a) and WSS (b) values extracted in CFD-Post and then arranged and plotted by layers with a Matlab code. 49 Figure 38 Velocity profiles extracted from all scaffold levels. 50 Figure 39 Structural comparison between CAD (a) and a µCT-reconstructed scaffold (b). Cross-sections from planes A (i) and B (ii) show the internal spatial arrangement of fibres. The two scaffolds are compared at all layers so the structural limitations of the fabrication process can be identified. 52 Figure 310 Internal micro-structure shown at the cross-sections specified in Figure 39 of the sample with different fibre distribution from the other samples. 53 Figure 311 Scaffold irregularities due to the punching process in a scaffold. 53 Figure 312 Velocity profile on a scaffold Fluid velocity data is extracted from line 1 which crosses a series of scaffold pores. 54 Figure 313 Effect of the element size within the scaffold region on the local fluid velocities. The data is extracted from line 1 shown in Figure 312. 55 Figure 314 Effect of the element size on the average WSS at the scaffold surface. 55 Figure 315 Effect of the element size outside the scaffold on the fluid velocities in the scaffold pores. Data extracted from line 1. 57 Figure 316 Line 2 from where the velocity values were extracted. 57 reconstructed
Thesis%20-%20Campos%20Marin%20A.docx