document: One of the most important outcomes of the comparative analysis is the fact that in all tested cases the use of FM is associated with a dramatic reduction in computational time when compared with FE, generally being in the order of seconds for FM and in the order of hours for FE. Table 1 reports the timings of the simulations for both methods. Free expansion is the fastest case, where FM reaches the load-free configuration in just 2 s, while simulations inside the vessels with the diameter of around 30 mm take approximately 30 s. Most of the execution time of the FM deployment algorithm is dedicated to the contact check and calculations of the implications the vessel wall has on the stent structure. Interestingly, in both methods, the highest computational time (i.e., curved vessels) is not associated with the most complex geometry (i.e., patient-specific case of aortic dissection). Another fact worth mentioning is the relation of the computational time to the diameter of the vessel in both methods. While the computational time of FM appeared to be directly related to the diameter of the vessel, no immediate relation was found for the FE simulations. Such outcome is probably related to the simplified contact model used by FM, which makes the stent-graft expansion terminate once the nodes come in contact with the vessel wall. On the contrary, it is well known that the contact algorithm used in the FE analyses increases the computational cost of the simulations.
extractive_keyphrases: comparative analysis contact algorithm curved vessels fe fm nodes simplified contact model simulations vessel vessels
abstractive_keyphrases: fe analyses fe simulations fm deployment algorithm stent-graft expansion vessel wall