Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2009 Sep 13;367(1902):3585–3606. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2009.0113

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2009 The Royal Society

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 1. — Time courses of changing inner radius (a,b) and wall thickness (c,d) for changes in pressure (left) and flow (right) of −10% (dashed) and +10% (dotted) from the homeostatic value (solid) with ∀s∈[0,1000] days. Expected values (cf. equation (4.1)) are indicated by corresponding arrows on the right ordinate. Although the vessel could neither maintain nor attain expected geometries, these changes stabilized asymptotically after long periods. Note the predicted large increase in wall thickness for all cases, suggesting the need for excessive deposition of sub-optimal material to compensate for the loss of the originally optimally deposited material. All quantities normalized with respect to homeostatic values at time s=0. These results can be compared to those in Valentín et al. (2009), which show ‘normal’ evolution towards expected values.

Inline graphic — Time courses of changing inner radius (a,b) and wall thickness (c,d) for changes in pressure (left) and flow (right) of −10% (dashed) and +10% (dotted) from the homeostatic value (solid) with ∀s∈[0,1000] days. Expected values (cf. equation (4.1)) are indicated by corresponding arrows on the right ordinate. Although the vessel could neither maintain nor attain expected geometries, these changes stabilized asymptotically after long periods. Note the predicted large increase in wall thickness for all cases, suggesting the need for excessive deposition of sub-optimal material to compensate for the loss of the originally optimally deposited material. All quantities normalized with respect to homeostatic values at time s=0. These results can be compared to those in Valentín et al. (2009), which show ‘normal’ evolution towards expected values.