Professional Documents
Culture Documents
All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the author.
Abstract
Attempts are being made from several researchers to understand aerosol transport inside
the human respiratory system. The basic goal of these studies is acquire an in-depth
knowledge of flow-particle transport with the ultimate aim to access local and total
particle deposition. The knowledge of which can then be used to make improved inhaler
designs or evaluate toxicological impact of inhaling toxic matter. The key to this
understanding depends mainly on three factors: human airway geometry, material
characteristics of inhaled aerosols (i.e. shape, size and mass) and knowledge of local flow
structures of carrier gas. Evaluation of aerosol deposition characteristics relies on
experiments and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The human airway geometry
varies significantly from person to person and as such realization of experiments is a time
consuming, and costly affair. Additionally, the inherent intricacies involved with the
airway geometry may render experiments unfeasible. It is to this end that CFD is a boon
to many biological studies. This work is concerned with the understanding of aerosol
deposition behavior in human airways using CFD.
The main goal of the present PhD research is to evaluate the existing flow-particle
modeling methods and propose more efficient CFD techniques in particulate flows.
The work described in this dissertation considers a sedentary breathing rate of 30 l/min
and 60 l/min corresponding to light activity. The particle sizes range from 2 m to 10
m. Two airway geometries, representing extrathoracic airway (consisting of oral,
pharynx, larynx and throat) and a 5-generation intrathoracic airway, are used for the
current research. The Eulerian or fluid part is solved by employing Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes equations (RANS) and using Large Eddy Simulation (LES). Moreover, the
particle phase is represented in the Lagrangian frame and calculated by numerically
integrating the particle equation of motion.
iii
iv
Acknowledgement
Foremost, I would like to express my deepest acknowledgement to my two supervisors,
Prof. Dr. Ir. Chris Lacor and Prof. Dr. Ir. Ghader Ghorbaniasl. Their patience, wisdom
and constant encouragement were the key driving force behind this PhD research.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and respect to Prof. Dr. Ir. Ghader
Ghorbaniasl who has been my advisor and the guiding beacon through four years of my
PhD research. I deeply owe to him for my intellectual gains and knowledge I learnt
during these years.
I would also like to thank my co-promoter Dr. Sylvia Verbanck for making me
understand the physiological aspects of the research project and giving vital suggestions
during the meetings.
I owe special gratitude for our system administrator Alain Wery for his everlasting
patience and support from day one of my VUB. Without his support this research
wouldnt have completed.
Special thanks go to our secretary Jenny Dhaes for helping me out in various
administrative tasks.
I would also like to thanks my colleagues, Leonidas Siozos-Rousoulis, Anna Sunol
Jimenez, Joo Duarte Miranda, Dinesh Kumar Verma, Khairy Elsayed for providing me
a good office environment with their good mood and humor. I would also thank my
former colleagues Matteo Parsani, Willem Diconinck, and Patryk Widera for making my
first two years at VUB truly fun and enjoyable. I have shared many laughs with them.
I would like to thank my family, specially mom, dad, brother and sister in law for their
constant love, motivation and unlimited support throughout my education. My gratitude
also goes to my parents in law for their support and their unconditional belief in me.
Special word of affection goes to my nephew Akshat and my brother in law Pranjal.
Finally, I cannot end without thanking my wife Prachi. You came into my life at the most
important time of my PhD, my final year. I thank you for giving me your unending
support, motivation and the belief that success will eventually follow despite having the
rough time of 2013. Without your support and love this work couldnt have completed.
You bring the light to my life.
vi
Jury Members
President
Vice-President
Secretary
External Members
Advisors
vii
Contents
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Human respiratory system and its interaction with aerosols
1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Anatomy of human respiratory system ........................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Extra-thoracic region.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Tracheobronchial region..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 Alveolar region .................................................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Literature survey
2.1 Airway modelisation ................................................................................................................ 15
2.1.1 Extrathoracic airway geometry ......................................................................................................... 16
2.1.2 Tracheobronchial geometry .............................................................................................................. 19
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Governing equations
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 29
3.2 Importance of turbulence ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Incompressible Navier-Stokes equation .................................................................................... 31
3.4 Modeling turbulence ................................................................................................................ 32
3.4.1 Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equation....................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Two equation SST
EVM ..................................................................................................... 35
viii
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 55
Particle deposition in an extrathoracic airway using RANS
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 55
4.2 Mathematical background........................................................................................................ 57
4.2.1 EIM and correction functions ........................................................................................................... 59
4.2.2 Isotropic EIM .................................................................................................................................. 59
4.2.3 Wang and James EIM ...................................................................................................................... 59
4.2.4 Helicity EIM .................................................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 75
Performance of helcity eddy interaction model
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 75
5.2 Simulation condition ................................................................................................................ 76
5.3 Results and discussion ............................................................................................................. 77
5.3.1 Inspiration ....................................................................................................................................... 77
5.3.2 Expiration ........................................................................................................................................ 79
5.3.3 Influence of inlet conditions and flow field data ................................................................................ 85
ix
CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 99
Rotational based Smagorinsky model
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 99
6.2 Description of RoSM model.................................................................................................... 101
6.3 Results and discussion ........................................................................................................... 107
6.3.1 Fully developed turbulent channel flow .......................................................................................... 108
6.3.2 Fully developed turbulent flow in a square duct .............................................................................. 113
6.3.3 Flow past a circular cylinder ........................................................................................................... 117
6.3.4 Application to UAM ...................................................................................................................... 122
7.4 Description of model geometry and sample data sets .............................................................. 139
7.5 Results and Condition ............................................................................................................ 140
7.5.1 Step 1, Evaluation of sampling period ............................................................................................. 140
7.5.2 Step 2, Evaluation of time interval .................................................................................................. 144
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................... 185
xi
Nomenclature
N-S
Navier-Stokes
DNS
RANS
LES
SGS
Subgrid Scale
DSM
RoSM
EVM
SST
EIM
HEIM
POD
UAM
PDI
CT
Computer tomography
Symbols
Re
Pr
Fr
Stk
Re p
Re t
Sct
Cd
ui
up
position vector, m
xp
Force vector, N
Dissipation
Specific dissipation
tint
tcross
le
time step, s
filter width
Sij
ij
absolute value
time average
Cs
Smagorisnky constant
xiv
Figures
FIGURE 1.1, HUMAN RESPIRATORY TRACT [1] ...................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 1.2, SCHEMATIC OF EXTRATHORACIC REGION REPRESENTING DIFFERENT REGIONS ................................................ 3
FIGURE 1.3, DIFFERENT TYPES OF INHALERS ......................................................................................................... 7
FIGURE 1.4, DEPOSITION DUE TO INERTIAL IMPACTION ........................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 1.5, DEPOSITION DUE TO SEDIMENTATION .............................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 1.6, DEPOSITION DUE TO BROWNIAN MOTION ......................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 1.7, DEPOSITION PROBABILITY WITH RESPECT TO PARTICLE SIZE, [7]............................................................... 13
FIGURE 2.1, SIMPLIFIED LARYNX GEOMETRY BY KATZ AND MARTONEN [13] .............................................................. 16
FIGURE 2.2, LARYNX GEOMETRY USED BY CORCORAN AND CHIGIER [14] .................................................................. 17
FIGURE 2.3, EXTRATHORACIC AIRWAY DEVELOPED BY KLEINSTREUER AND ZHANG [15] ................................................. 18
FIGURE 2.4, EXTRATHORACIC AIRWAY DEVELOPED BY [20] .................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 2.5, (LEFT) REALISTIC GEOMETRY; (B) SIMPLIFIED EXTRATHORACIC GEOMETRY OF VUB. ..................................... 19
FIGURE 2.6, TRACHEOBRONCHIAL GEOMETRIES BASED ON WEIBEL A MODEL, (LEFT) ZHANG AND KLEINSTREUER [26], (MIDDLE)
LONGEST AND VINCHURKAR [27], (LEFT) VASCONCELOSET ET AL. [28] ............................................................ 21
FIGURE 2.7, TRACHEOBRONCHIAL GEOMETRY GENERATED BY VAN ERTBRUGGEN ET AL. [11] ......................................... 22
FIGURE 2.8, DOUBLE BIFURCATION GENERATION GENERATED BY HOLBROOK ET AL. [29]............................................... 23
FIGURE 2.9, CT-SCAN BASED UPPER RESPIRATORY AIRWAY GEOMETRY USED BY LIN ET AL. [30], (LEFT) EXTRATHORACIC REGION
DEPICTING VARIOUS REGIONS, (RIGHT) TRACHEOBRONCHIAL REGION ............................................................... 23
FIGURE 4.4, SIMPLIFIED UAM MODEL AND RESPECTIVE COMPARTMENTS USED IN UAM .............................................. 66
FIGURE 4.5, MESH AT DIFFERENT SECTION PLANES IN UAM .................................................................................. 67
FIGURE 4.6, COMPARISON OF NORMALIZED VELOCITY COMPONENT FOR DIFFERENT MESH COUNTS. SECTION (A), (B), (C) AND
(D) CORRESPONDS TO FIVE MM ABOVE EPIGLOTTIS AND ONE, TWO AND THREE TRACHEAL DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM OF
GLOTTIS, RESPECTIVELY ........................................................................................................................ 68
xv
FIGURE 4.7, INSPIRATORY TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (LEFT) 30 L/MIN AND (RIGHT) 60 L/MIN; PARTICLE SIZES RANGE
FROM 2 M-10 M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS)-SIMULATIONS; (DISCONNECTED SYMBOLS)-EXPERIMENTS ................... 70
FIGURE 4.8, INSPIRATORY RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (UPPER) 30 L/MIN AND (LOWER) 60 L/MIN; (LEFT) 3M AND
(RIGHT) 6M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS) SIMULATIONS; (DISCONNECTED SOLID SQUARES,-EXPERIMENTS) ................. 71
FIGURE 5.1, SCHEMATIC OF AEROSOL DEPOSITION EXPERIMENTS, VERBANCK ET AL. [45].............................................. 77
FIGURE 5.2, INSPIRATORY TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (LEFT) 30 L/MIN AND (RIGHT) 60 L/MIN; PARTICLE SIZES RANGE
FROM 2M-10M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS) SIMULATIONS; (DISCONNECTED SYMBOLS)-EXPERIMENTS ................... 78
FIGURE 5.3, INSPIRATORY RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (UPPER) 30 L/MIN AND (LOWER) 60 L/MIN; (LEFT) 3M AND
(RIGHT) 6M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS) SIMULATIONS; (DISCONNECTED SOLID SQUARES,-EXPERIMENTS) ................. 79
FIGURE 5.4, INSPIRATORY RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (LEFT) 30 L/MIN AND (RIGHT) 60 L/MIN; ALL PANELS TOP TO
BOTTOM CORRESPOND TO 2, 4, 8AND 10 M ........................................................................................... 81
FIGURE 5.5, EXPIRATORY TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (LEFT) 30 L/MIN AND (RIGHT) 60 L/MIN; PARTICLE SIZES RANGE
FROM 2M-10M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS)SIMULATIONS; (DISCONNECTED SQUARE SYMBOLS)-EXPERIMENTS ......... 82
FIGURE 5.6, EXPIRATORY RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (UPPER) 30 L/MIN AND (LOWER) 60 L/MIN; (LEFT) 3M AND
(RIGHT) 6M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS)SIMULATIONS; (DISCONNECTED SQUARE SYMBOLS)-EXPERIMENTS ................ 83
FIGURE 5.7, EXPIRATORY RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES, (LEFT) 30 L/MIN AND (RIGHT) 60 L/MIN; ALL PANELS TOP TO
BOTTOM CORRESPOND TO 2, 4, 8AND 10 M; (CONNECTED SYMBOLS) SIMULATIONS ........................................ 84
FIGURE 5.8, (LEFT) UAM WITH CONNECTOR TUBING (SHOWN IN SHADED AREA) AT THE INLET FOR INSPIRATORY BREATHING
0
PHASE SETUP; (RIGHT) UAM WITH 90 ELBOW BEND CONNECTOR (SHOWN IN SHADED AREA) AT THE INLET FOR
6
EXPIRATORY BREATHING PHASE SETUP. THE ADDITIONAL MESH FOR THE CONNECTOR TUBINGS ARE (LEFT) 0.4 X 10 AND
FIGURE 5.10, IMPACT OF TOP HAT AND PARABOLIC INSPIRATORY VELOCITY PROFILES IMPOSED EITHER DIRECTLY AT UAM INLET
(UPPER AND MIDDLE PANELS) OR VIA CONNECTOR TUBING (BOTTOM PANEL). VELOCITY MAGNITUDE CONTOURS, FLOW
STREAMLINES IN THE CENTRAL SAGITTAL PLANE, AND PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION PROFILES AT DIFFERENT UAM STATIONS ARE
SHOWN FOR 60 L/MIN
........................................................................................................................ 89
FIGURE 5.11, IMPACT OF EXPIRATORY VELOCITY PROFILES: (LEFT AND MIDDLE PANEL) ARE NAMELY TOP-HAT AND PARABOLIC
WITHOUT CONNECTOR TUBING; (RIGHT PANEL) TOP-HAT WITH CONNECTOR TUBING. VELOCITY MAGNITUDE CONTOURS,
STREAMLINES IN THE CENTRAL SAGITTAL PLANE, AND PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION PROFILES AT DIFFERENT UAM STATIONS ARE
SHOWN FOR 60 L/MIN.
....................................................................................................................... 91
FIGURE 5.12, TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY; (LEFT PANEL) INSPIRATION; (RIGHT PANEL) EXPIRATION FOR 60 L/MIN .......... 92
FIGURE 5.13, RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES,(TOP) 8M, (LOWER) 10M; (LEFT) INSPIRATION, (RIGHT) EXPIRATION .. 94
xvi
FIGURE 5.14, DEPENDENCE OF HELICITY EIM ON THE TURBULENCE MODEL; (LEFT) INSPIRATION, (RIGHT) EXPIRATION FOR
60L/MIN ......................................................................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 6.1, (A) RESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED EDDIES IN TURBULENT FLOW FIELD. (B) TRANSLATIONAL VELOCITY AND ROTATION
RATE COMPONENTS IN X, Y AND Z DIRECTIONS.......................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 6.8, THE CALCULATED RMS VALUES OF THE DIAGONAL REYNOLDS STRESSES COMPARED WITH THE DYNAMIC
SMAGORINSKY, NO
FIGURE 6.9, (A) THE CALCULATED XY-COMPONENT OF REYNOLDS STRESS TENSOR COMPARED WITH THE DYNAMIC SMAGORINSKY
MODEL , NO MODEL AND DNS. (B) THE MODEL COEFFICIENT PROFILES.......................................................... 116
FIGURE 6.13, THE CALCULATED STREAMWISE TURBULENT INTENSITY COMPARED WITH THE DYNAMIC SMAGORINSKY MODEL,
NO MODEL, LES DATA [111], DNS [114] AND EXPERIMENTS [115]. (A) x / D 1.06 , (B) x / D 1.54 . 120
FIGURE 6.14, THE CALCULATED CROSSWISE TURBULENT INTENSITY COMPARED WITH THE DYNAMIC SMAGORINSKY MODEL, NO
MODEL , LES DATA [111], DNS [114] AND EXPERIMENTS [115]. (A)
FIGURE 6.15, THE CALCULATED XY-COMPONENT OF THE REYNOLDS STRESS TENSOR COMPARED WITH THE DYNAMIC
SMAGORINSKY MODEL, NO MODEL, LES DATA [111], DNS [114] AND EXPERIMENTS [115]. (A) x / D 1.06 , (B)
xvii
AND
PLANE, (A), (B), AND (C) ARE ONE, TWO AND THREE TRACHEAL DIAMETER DOWNSTREAM OF LARYNX, RESPECTIVELY; ( D)
AND
PLANE, (A), (B), AND (C) ARE ONE, TWO AND THREE TRACHEAL DIAMETER DOWNSTREAM OF LARYNX, RESPECTIVELY; ( D)
FIVE MM ABOVE EPIGLOTTIS. ............................................................................................................... 126
FIGURE 7.1, SCHEMATIC OF PARTICLE CALCULATION PROCEDURE, A) DYNAMIC APPROACH, B) MULTIPLE LES FROZEN FIELD
APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 132
FIGURE 7.2, UAM MODEL GEOMETRY SHOWING LOCATION OF PLANES WITH ONE SAGITTAL PLANE AND FIVE PERPENDICULAR
PLANES NUMBERED 1-5 ..................................................................................................................... 140
FIGURE 7.3, RELATIVE INFORMATION CONTENT (RIC) FOR VARIOUS SAMPLE SETS DETAILED IN TABLE 7.1; CONSIDERING (A)
CASE 1 SAGITTAL PLANE; (B) CASE 2 SAGITTAL AND FIVE PERPENDICULAR PLANES (SEE FIGURE 7.2)...................... 141
FIGURE 7.4, CONTOURS AND PROFILES OF AVERAGE VELOCITY MAGNITUDE AT SAGITTAL PLANE FOR SELECTED SETS OF TABLE 1,
(A) VELOCITY MAGNITUDE CONTOUR; (B), (C) AND (D) ARE THE VELOCITY PROFILES AT SECTION 1-1 ..................... 143
FIGURE 7.5, AUTO CORRELATION INDEX; (A, D) X-VELOCITY, (B, E) Y-VELOCITY, (C, F) Z-VELOCITY RESPECTIVELY; (TOP) CASE 1,
(BOTTOM) CASE 2 ............................................................................................................................ 145
FIGURE 7.6, CONTOURS AND PROFILES OF AVERAGE VELOCITY MAGNITUDE AT SAGITTAL PLANE FOR SETS DETAILED IN TABLE 3,
(A) VELOCITY MAGNITUDE CONTOUR; (B), (C) AND (D) ARE THE VELOCITY PROFILES AT SECTION 1-1, 2-2 AND 3-3
RESPECTIVELY. ................................................................................................................................. 146
FIGURE 7.7, PARTICLE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES FOR SET I, II AND III; (A)TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY, (B)-(C) RELATIVE
DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY FOR 3M AND 6M ............................................................................................ 148
FIGURE 7.8, PARTICLE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES COMPARISON ; (A) TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY, (B)-(C) RELATIVE
DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY FOR 3M AND 6M ............................................................................................ 149
FIGURE 7.9, CONTOURS AND PROFILES OF AVERAGE VELOCITY MAGNITUDE AT SAGITTAL PLANE, (A) VELOCITY MAGNITUDE
CONTOUR; (B), (C) AND (D) ARE THE VELOCITY PROFILES AT SECTION 1-1, 2-2 AND 3-3 RESPECTIVELY ............... 150
FIGURE 7.10, PARTICLE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCIES COMPARISON ; (A)-(B)TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY, (C)-(D) RELATIVE
DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY FOR 3M, (E)-(F) RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY FOR 6M ....................................... 154
FIGURE 7.11, COMPARISON OF k res (AVERAGED KINETIC ENERGY OF THE RESOLVED FIELD),
KINETIC ENERGY) AND k rms (KINETIC ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE FLUCTUATION), CORRESPONDING TO REFERENCE DATA
SET;
DENOTES ENSEMBLE AVERAGE AND RMS DENOTES ROOM MEAN SQUARE FLUCTUATION ......................... 154
xviii
FIGURE 7.12, COMPARISON OF PARTICLE DEPOSITION BETWEEN RANS AND LES AT INSPIRATORY FLOW RATE OF 60 L/MIN; (A)
TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY, (B)-(C) RELATIVE DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY CORRESPONDING TO 3M AND 6 M ........ 155
FIGURE 8.1, UPPER AIRWAY GEOMETRY RECONSTRUCTED BY FUSING SCALED UAM MODEL WITH CT-SCAN DATA OF A FEMALE
ADULT. .......................................................................................................................................... 161
FIGURE 8.2, SAGITTAL PLANE WITH SECTION PLANES USED FOR MESH CONVERGENCE STUDY ........................................ 163
FIGURE 8.3, NON DIMENSIONAL MEAN VELOCITY MAGNITUDE AT SECTIONS A-F ........................................................ 164
FIGURE 8.4, CONTOURS OF MEAN VELOCITY MAGNITUDE (A) AND MEAN TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY (B) ....................... 165
FIGURE 8.5, CONTOURS OF MEAN VELOCITY MAGNITUDE AND TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY AT CENTRAL PLANE ................. 166
FIGURE 8.6, COMPARISON OF FLOW DISTRIBUTION AT OUTLETS AGAINST EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED DATA AT 30 L/MIN .. 167
q
i
i 1
k 1
REDUCED SETS. THE RED LINE CORRESPONDS TO Q=1041 AND THE BLUE LINE CORRESPONDS TO THE REFERENCE DATA
BASE OF Q=1201 .............................................................................................................................
95%
FIGURE 8.8, N q
/ N q95%
1201
168
FIGURE 8.9, AUTO CORRELATION INDEX; (A) X-VELOCITY, (B) Y-VELOCITY, (C) Z-VELOCITY ........................................... 170
FIGURE 8.10, ORAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................... 172
FIGURE 8.11, TOTAL DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................... 173
FIGURE 8.12, DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY AT GENERATION G1 ................................................................................. 173
FIGURE 8.13, LOBAR DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY: (A) 2 M, (B) 10 M ...................................................................... 174
FIGURE 9.1, LOBAR PARTICLE DEPOSITION VERSUS LOBAR FLOW DISTRIBUTION AT 60 L/MIN, PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS. ........................................................................................................................................ 181
xix
iii
Chapter 1
Human respiratory system and its
interaction with aerosols
Contents
1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Anatomy of human respiratory system.................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Extra-thoracic region........................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Tracheobronchial region..................................................................................................................5
1.2.3 Alveolar region..................................................................................................................................6
1.3 Aerosols....................................................................................................................................................6
1.4 Aerosol particle dynamics......................................................................................................................7
1.5 Aerosol deposition mechanism...............................................................................................................9
1.6 Factors affecting deposition mechanism.............................................................................................12
1.1 Introduction
The respiratory system present in mammals and other life forms, is a vital organ whose
primary function is to supply oxygen to the blood (needed by cells to function) and
remove carbon monoxide (by product of cells). This is achieved through the act of
inhaling air (termed as Inhalation) and exhaling air (termed as Exhalation). The whole
act/process is termed as respiration. Some amazing facts regarding human respiratory
system are listed as follows:
Nasal cavity
The nasal cavity forms the main entrance point for the outside air into the respiratory
tract. The nasal cavity represents a hollow space lined up with hairs and mucus. The
primary function is to condition the air before it is conducted deeper inside the respiratory
system. As the air passes through the nasal cavity it gets warm, moisturized and filtered
for the foreign particle. The hair and mucus helps to trap foreign contaminants present in
the air before it reaches deeper inside lungs. In addition, mucus also helps in moistening
the air.
Oral cavity
Oral cavity is the secondary opening to the respiratory tract. Normally breathing takes
place through nasal cavity, but the oral cavity can be used to supplement the breathing
such during cold or heavy exercises. The mouth however does not condition the air
because of the lack of hairs and mucus. Since the mouth passage is shorter than nasal and
also because of larger cross sectional area, more air reaches quickly in the lungs.
Pharynx
Pharynx also known as throat extends from the posterior end of the nasal cavity to the
superior end of the esophagus and larynx (see Figure 1.1). It consists of three regions,
namely nasopharynx, oropharynx, and laryngopharynx. It shapes like a funnel and
collects air coming from mouth and nose and passes it down towards trachea. The
epiglottis, which is a flap of elastic cartilage present at the opening of the trachea,
prevents swallowed material from getting entered into the trachea.
Larynx
Larynx known as the voice box is a small region in the respiratory tract that connects
laryngopharynx and trachea. It is composed of several cartilage structures. It consists of
special structures known as vocal chords which vibrate when one expires air. The vocal
folds are made up of mucous membrane that vibrates to produce vocal sounds. Humans
4
have the ability to control the tension and vibration speed of the vocal folds to make
sound.
1.3 Aerosols
Suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a carrier fluid (liquid or gas) is
termed as Aerosols. Examples include, haze, dust, smoke, mist etc. In the context of
human respiratory system, the study on aerosols is required for, a) evaluating
toxicological impact of inhaling toxic matter on human lungs and b) making efficient
devices delivering therapeutic drugs to affected sites of the lungs.
I) Toxicological impact, Prolonged exposure to particulate matter present in air can have
severe ill effects on human health. It is now been well recognized that deposition of
particulate matter present in aerosol scan is linked to many lung related ailments such as
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) and lung cancer. The recent
report from World Health Organization (WHO) [2] concludes that indoor air pollution
resulted in nearly 2.5 million premature deaths. Urban outdoor air pollution is estimated
to have caused nearly 1.3 million deaths worldwide per year. The size of the particulate
matter present in the air is the determining factor where in lungs particles will deposit.
Particle sizes smaller than 2.5 m pose more threat than particles having size greater than
10 m, since former has the higher probability of getting much deeper inside the lungs.
II) Therapeutic consideration, Delivering therapeutic drug via respiratory tract is
considered the preferred method for treating COPD and asthma. The advantages include
delivery of medication directly to the site of action thereby resulting in faster onset of
action. Moreover, one dose of inhaled medication contains less medication than a tablet
6
yet delivers the same effect. This mode of treatment achieved by devices called as
inhalers. Based on the working mechanism, there are three principle types of inhalers
available in the market, i) pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI), ii) dry powder
inhalers (DPI), and iii) nebulizers (see Figure 1.3). Nebulizer systems are typically less
portable than pMDI and DPI and are used in case of acute asthma attacks and for patients
unable to use other inhalers. The development of these devices is not a trivial task and
includes many design considerations, importantly, particle properties (density, diameter,
shape, chemical composition etc.), aerosol particle properties (volume fraction loading of
particles (concentration), particle size range, flow rate etc.), respiratory tract properties
(geometry, presence of disease etc.).
Cd
Fd
1 2
u A
2 rel
(1.1)
where Cd represents the drag coefficient and depends upon the particle Reynolds number
Re p . The term is the fluid density, urel is the magnitude of relative velocity vector
u up ( u is the fluid velocity vector and up is the particle velocity) and A is the cross
sectional area. The direction of drag force acts in a direction parallel to vector u up .
II) Gravitational force ( Fg ), As with every object on earth, aerosol particle is pulled by
earths gravity
Fg m p g
(1.2)
where m p is the particle mass and g is the acceleration vector due to gravity.
III) Brownian diffusion force, Particles having size less than 1 m are subjected to
random movement as a result of collision with fluid molecules. The accounting Brownian
force becomes increasingly important with decreasing particle size.
IV) Electrostatic force, If an aerosol particle has a net charge, its motion is affected by the
electrostatic forces. The lung airways in general do not have any net charge but they are
electrically conducting. As a result, close to the airway wall, the tissue in the wall gets
oriented because of the charged aerosol particle and creates a net electric field. In this
work, since we are dealing with particles having zero net charge we neglect this force.
As will be discussed later in chapter 3, due to the fact that particle density is 1000 times
greater than carried fluid density, other forces such as Buoyancy force, Magnus force, lift
force, Basset force etc. are neglected.
Stk
rU
D
(1.3)
where r is particle characteristic time, U is the air velocity and D is the airway diameter.
For a particle Stk 1 indicates that it will closely follow flow streamlines and will
quickly adjust to any change in air flow path. Similarly, for a particle with Stk 1 or
Stk 1 , will not follow any sudden change in air flow streamline.
Sedimentation
Deposition due to sedimentation or gravitational settling refers to particle deposition due
to gravity (illustrated in Figure 1.5). The probability of a particle being deposited due to
sedimentation depends upon particle density, size and the time spent by the particle in
airway segment (called as residence time). In the respiratory system this usually occurs at
distal airway segments (smaller bronchi and bronchioles, alveolar region), where the flow
velocity is very low [4].
10
Brownian diffusion
At smaller airway segments (such as bronchioles, alveoli), where the particle residence
time is relatively long, smaller diameter particles ( d p 1 m ) can come into contact of
airway walls and hence deposit as a result of Brownian motion (as illustrated in Figure
1.6). Brownian motion is a microscopic three dimensional stochastic random walk of
particle and occurs due to the collision of particle with the air molecules. For times much
longer than the time between molecular collision, Einstein formulated the displacement
of particle due to brownian motion as
xd 2 Dbt
(1.4)
Db
kTCc
3 d p
(1.5)
11
Interception
A particle following the air stream without any deviation can still deposit at the airway
wall because of its physical size greater than the airway. This is termed as interception.
Usually this type of deposition mechanism occurs for long fibers (long in one dimension)
and ignored for pharmaceutical aerosols which mainly consist of spherical particles.
between 0.5-5m has the ability to reach much deeper inside the lungs. Particles having
size greater than 5 m tend to deposit mainly in the extrathoracic region, while particles
smaller than 0.5 m exhaled out without depositing. Figure 1.7, illustrates a typical
deposition pattern in various regions of the lungs depending upon the particle size
diameter.
III) Inhalation flow rate: The mode of inhalation directly affects the particles deposition.
With increased inhalation flow rate, the probability of particle depositing due to inertial
impaction in the extra-thoracic region increases. Conversely, reducing inhalation flow
rate allows particles to negate sudden changes in flow path as such the probability of
particles being carried much deeper inside the lungs increases. In general, the inhalation
flow rates are broadly classified into slow breathing (15 l/min), tidal breathing (30 l/min)
and heavy breathing (60 l/min).
existing CFD literature on human airways. Chapter 3 gives detailed mathematical models
used to describe fluid and particle phase.
Chapter 4 till Chapter 8 presents results from various numerical experiments conducted in
the present research. In particular within the framework of RANS, Chapter 4 discusses
and compares simulated particle data using classical eddy interaction model and Wang &
James model and describes a new simpler helicity based eddy interaction model (HEIM).
Further Chapter 5 presents various numerical experiments to evaluate the performance of
HEIM.
The last part of the research focuses on Large Eddy simulation (LES) (Chapter 6 till
Chapter 8). In this part, first a new simpler rotational based subgrid scale model for LES
is proposed and evaluated in Chapter 6. In continuation the next Chapter 7 discusses and
evaluates an efficient multiple LES frozen field approach based on Proper Orthogonal
decomposition (POD).
generation intrathoracic airway model using LES and the approach of Chapter 7.
14
Chapter 2
Literature survey
Contents
2.1 Airway modelisation...............................................................................................................................15
2.1.1 Extrathoracic airway geometry.......................................................................................................16
2.1.2 Tracheobronchial airway geometry................................................................................................19
2.2 Modeling methods for aerosol transport..............................................................................................24
2.2.1 Modeling fluid phase.......................................................................................................................24
2.2.2 Particle phase....................................................................................................................................26
The entire spectrum representing aerosol transport in human respiratory tract can be
broadly divided in two main fields, namely i) airway modelisation, and ii) predictive
methods for aerosol transport. While the former concerns with development of airway
geometries for numerical and experimental studies. Latter concerns mainly with the
numerical modeling of aerosol transport i.e. modeling fluid phase and particle phase.
relationships between parent and daughter airways (e.g. Kitaoka et al. [8], Tawhai et al.
[9]). The second approach consists of digitally reconstructing the airway structure based
on the data available from CT-scan or micro CT-scan of patients (e.g. Matida et al. [10],
van Ertbruggen et al. [11] and Nithiarasu et al. [12]).
This work uses the second approach, whereby the airway geometries are modelled based
on the available CT-scan. Traditionally, for computational and experimental studies the
respiratory tract is divided into extrathoracic region or tracheobronchial region (typically
till 5th generation) or alveolar region. In this work we have kept ourselves to the
extrathoracic (or upper airway) and tracheobronchial region.
Corcoran and Chigier [14] measured the axial velocity and turbulence intensity, using
Phase Doppler Interferometry (PDI) in a cadaver-based simplified larynx-trachea model
(Figure 2.2). The model consisted of a polyurethane casting of the human larynx,
connected to a glass tube with an inside diameter matching the tracheal diameter of the
cadaver.
16
The preliminary flow results obtained in the above mentioned geometries (Figure 2.1 and
Figure 2.2) did provided some useful initial flow physics but these geometries are over
simplified. As a result authors that followed used more realistic geometries such as
Kleinstreuer and Zhang [15], Matida et al. [10], Farkas et al. [16], Jin et al. [17]; Xi and
Longest [18]. For example, Kleinstreuer and Zhang [15] modeled the extrathoracic region
as 1800 curved bend (see Figure 2.3). The diameter variations along the airway model
from oral cavity to trachea where based on the Cheng et al. [19] morphometric
measurements of a human oral cast. Similarly, Stapleton et al. [20] , DeHaan and Finlay
[21] and Grgic, Finlay, and Heenan [22]
17
On similar lines, a simplified extrathoracic airway shown in Figure 2.5 was developed at
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). The simplified model was based on the work of Brouns
et al. [23] of VUB, and was based on the CT-scan of five otherwise healthy never-smoker
male subjects. The simplification of the geometry was done so as to facilitate the
comparison of numerical and experimental studies. The simplification is done by keeping
the critical features such as shape of mouth cavity, position of trachea and the epiglottis
(as shown in Figure 2.5). Due to the availability of experimental, the simplified model is
extensively used in the present work.
18
Figure 2.5, (left) Realistic geometry; (b) simplified extrathoracic geometry of VUB.
into two daughter branches. Although this simplify analysis but is not accurate since in
actual human airway diameters and lengths of daughter airways can be quite different
from one another. It is stated that the absence of airway curvature and surface
irregularities make the flow fields in a Weibel based model very different from those in a
real lung. For example, Nowak et al. [24] , who were first to compare Weibel A model
with a CT-scan of a cadaver lung cast (till 4th generation). Unsteady and steady
calculations were compared. These authors concluded there is no consistent pattern of
similarity between symmetric model of Weibel and asymmetric model based on CT-scan.
They also stated that differences between steady and unsteady flow solutions make the
former unreliable. Although physiologically incorrect, Weibel A geometry has been used
in several studies (such as Shi et al. [25], Zhang and Kleinstreuer [26] , Longest and
Vinchurkar [27], Jin et al. [17] and more recently by Vasconceloset al. [28], etc.). Figure
2.6, illustrates the upper airway geometries based on Weibel A model. The left most
panels represent the airway geometry used by Zhang and Kleinstreuer [26]. As shown the
upper airway model consists of two parts, an oral airway model, including oral cavity,
pharynx, larynx and trachea, and a symmetric, planar, triple-bifurcation lung airway
model representing generations G0 (trachea) to G3 based on Weibel A model. The
authors used this geometry to study the differences between micron and nano particle
deposition characteristics. Further, Figure 2.6 (middle panel), illustrates the geometry
used by Jin et al. [17] for conducting large eddy simulation calculations. The geometry
was generated by fusing the mouththroat geometry developed at ARLA (Aerosol
Research Laboratory of Alberta) [7] with the triple bifurcation based on Weibel A model.
Similarly, the left most panel of Figure 2.6 consists of a 4 bifurcation Weibel A model.
This geometry was recently used by Vasconceloset et al. [28] for investigating their
proposed approach of determining micron particle deposition by estimating escape rate at
each airway segment. In most of these studies the simplified model was used with the
sole purpose of proposing or validating a numerical approach, effect of mesh styling,
inlet boundary conditions etc. These studies were not meant to draw any physiological
conclusion.
20
Figure 2.6, Tracheobronchial geometries based on Weibel A model, (left) Zhang and Kleinstreuer
[26], (middle) Longest and vinchurkar [27], (left) Vasconceloset et al. [28]
Because of the advent of new imaging modalities (Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI
scan) and Computer tomography (CT)) and increase computing resources, it is now
possible to recreate digitally realistic human airway geometries. The only shortcoming
with these modalities is that the reconstruction of human geometry is restricted to the
resolution of the camera. Therefore, to date geometries till 5 th generation has been
reported in literature. For instance, in a detailed study Lin et al. [30] conducted direct
numerical simulation on CT imaged derived upper airway (shown in Figure 2.9). The
geometry of the human upper respiratory tract is derived from volumetric scans of a
volunteer imaged via multi detector row computed tomography. In this study Lin et al.
[30] used to geometries one starting with mouth and ending at generation 5, while other
starting at trachea and ending at generation 5. The author reported that neglecting
extrathoracic part and using simple inlet boundary conditions do not adequately represent
the effect of the upper airway structures. This inturn affects the estimate of flow through
several generations of airway and the tracheal wall shear stress. Similar to Lin et al. [30]
few more studies have been reported using CT-scan derived upper airway geometry (such
as Ma and Luchten et al. [31], Ghalati et al. [32] etc).
22
Figure 2.9, CT-scan based upper respiratory airway geometry used by Lin et al. [30], (left)
extrathoracic region depicting various regions, (right) tracheobronchial region
23
in the present work ranges from 2500 for 30 l/min and 5000 for 60 l/min). At this
Reynolds number range as reported by Wilcox [38], and Pope [39], the standard
turbulence models (for e.g. k-, RNG k etc.) fails to predict laminar to turbulence
transition. Therefore, under such conditions low-Reynolds-number (LRN) turbulence
models have to be considered. For example, Stapleton et al. [20] reported significant
deviations from experimentally observed pressure drop when comparing against standard
k- simulations. To further investigate this problem Zhang and Kleinstreuer [40],
compared the performance of LRN k- model against k-, RNG k-, LRN k- and found
comparatively good experimental agreement for velocity and kinetic energy levels across
the geometry. This model has also been successfully employed in various other airway
geometries [ [15], [41], [42], [43]].
Even though LRN based turbulence model predicted comparatively better mean flow
field, still there were deviations in particle deposition when compared against
experiments (for e.g. Jayaraju et al. [44], Verbanck et al. [45]). This mainly because in
RANS there is no information of velocity fluctuations and as such it needs to be modelled
from simulated turbulent kinetic energy. The modelling is not straightforward and
involves some adhoc assumptions (more discussed in Chapter 4). Owing to this
ambiguity and the importance of predicting the flow field accurately, authors such as
Matida et al. [46], Jayaraju et al. [44], Lambert et al. [47], Jin et al. [48] etc., have
employed large eddy simulation (LES). For example, Matida et al. [46], employed LES
using constant Smagorisnky model and reported improved particle results over RANS.
Similarly, Jayaraju et al. [44] employed LES using WALE and constant Smagorinsky as
subgrid scale (SGS) model and found good overall agreement of flow and particle results
when compared against experimental data.
However, RANS till date is still preferred over LES because of computational
requirements. In this view, the present work proposes a new SGS model which will be
shown to be computationally faster and gives accurate results (see chapter 6 and 7).
Besides RANS and LES, direct numerical solution (DNS) in human airways has also
been cited. Till date the most comprehensive work remains that of Lin et al. [30], who
25
systematically studied the importance of upper and intrathoracic airways on air flow
patterns and turbulence characteristics. They found that the regions of high turbulence
intensity are associated with TaylorGrtler like vortices.
data. For example, Matida et al. [10] studied the deposition of monodisperse particles (126 m) in human mouth-throat geometry, at inhalation flow rates of 30 and 90 l/min. For
the Eulerian phase they employ LRN k turbulence model, while the Lagrangian phase
is simulated based on EIM by Gosman and Ioannides [54]. Contrary to the good
performance of LRN k- model reported by Zhang et al. [60], the simulations of Matida
et al. [10] showed huge deviations in deposition percentages (>50%), even for the lowest
Stokes number particles. Similar observations were reported in Jayaraju et al [44],
Verbanck et al. [45] etc. The main reason according to these authors was the underlying
assumption of isotropy in the EIM model. To this Matida employed near wall correction
function based on Wang and James [61] and obtained better overall deposition prediction.
Similar correction function were used by [62], [63], [64] etc. Inspite of using such adhoc
correction function one can introduce the anisotropy retrieved from the flow itself. This
new methodology will be discussed in chapter 4. As a result of ambiguities present with
EIM several authors applied large eddy simulation (LES) methods for the study of
particle deposition in the human airway (e.g. Matida et al. [46], Jayaraju et al. [44],
Lambert et al. [47]). Still the number of such studies are few because of the involved
computational and memory requirement. To this Agnihotri et al. [65] used a systematic
procedure to reduce computational requirement discussed in detail in chapter 7.
27
28
Chapter 3
Governing equations
Contents
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................29
3.2 Importance of turbulence.....................................................................................................................30
3.3 Incompressible Navier-Stokes equation..............................................................................................31
3.4 Modeling turbulence.............................................................................................................................32
3.4.1 Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equation................................................................................33
3.4.2 Two equation SST k- EVM.........................................................................................................35
3.4.3 Large eddy eimulation...................................................................................................................39
3.4.4 Smagorinsky model.........................................................................................................................41
3.5 Modeling particle phase........................................................................................................................45
3.5.1 Modeling assumption......................................................................................................................46
3.5.2 Eulerian approach..........................................................................................................................47
3.5.3 Lagrangian approach.....................................................................................................................49
3.5.4 Eddy interaction model...................................................................................................................52
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we first begin by describing fluid dynamics from a purely heuristic point
of view. We then give a brief overview on the mathematical equations used in this work
to describe the transport of the fluid phase and particle phase. Firstly, the Navier-Stokes
equations (N-S) which govern the transport of fluid phase will be presented. Followed by
the representation of Navier-Stokes equation in the frame work of Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes equation (RANS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES) will be presented.
Finally, the chapter concludes with the description of equation of motion for the particle
phase.
29
dissipativity.
O. Reynolds [67] systematically investigated the transition from laminar to turbulence
through experiments in a pipe flow. He discovered that the flow instability resulting in
transition from laminar to turbulent flow is dependent on a non-dimensional parameter
known as Reynolds number. This parameter denoted by Re is a ratio of inertial forces to
viscous forces, i.e.
Re
UL
(3.1)
where is the dynamic viscosity, is the fluid density. The terms U and L are the
characteristic velocity and length scales, respectively. At large Reynolds numbers
(inertial forces much larger than viscous forces), flow instabilities grow rapidly resulting
into intense mixing, and the flow is then termed as turbulent. On the other hand, at
moderate or low Reynolds number viscous forces are able to suppress the flow
instabilities and the resulting fluctuations, this behavior is termed as laminar.
Turbulence is generally perceived as the spectrum of eddies having varied sizes, where an
eddy is conceived as a coherent flow structure over a specified region (see Figure 3.1).
The spectrum spans from the largest energy containing eddies known as integral scale to
intermediate Taylor scale down to smallest scales known as Kolmogorov micro scales.
The integral scale corresponds to those flow structures which contain most of the
30
turbulent energy. At these scales, the viscosity effects are negligibly small and are mainly
determined by the geometrical domain and boundary conditions. The Taylor micro scales
are intermediate scales, basically corresponding to Kolmogorovs inertial sub range. The
Kolmogorov (or dissipation) scales are the smallest turbulence scales. These scales are of
universal nature and are strongly affected by viscosity.
31
(3.2)
ui ui u j
1 p 1 ij
t
x j
xi x j
(3.3)
where ui represents the i-th component of the fluid velocity, (constant) is the fluid
density, and ij represents the symmetric stress tensor. For a constant property
Newtonian and incompressible fluid, ij is given as
ij 2 Sij
(3.4)
where p is the static pressure, is the dynamic viscosity, and Sij is the strain rate tensor
given by
Sij
1 ui u j
2 x j xi
(3.5)
Using equation (3.4) in equation (3.3) results into the following final form
S
ui ui u j
1 p
2 ij
t
x j
xi
x j
(3.6)
length scales and time scales need to be resolved, thereby making the approach
computationally most expensive. Because the number of grid points required to fully
resolve DNS in three dimensions varies with Re9/4 , DNS is restricted to low to moderate
Reynolds number flows. DNS is generally used as a research tool for studying the
mechanics of turbulence, such as identifying dominant flow structures, energy cascading,
energy production etc.
RANS, which is computationally the least expensive method, consists in solving an
equation for a time averaged mean velocity field ui x and all the flow fluctuations
are averaged out. Since only mean quantities are represented, it requires additional
strategies for modeling the effect of turbulence on the mean quantities.
In terms of flow field description, LES lies in between DNS and RANS. In this approach,
equations are solved for an instantaneous filtered velocity ui ( x, t) , where small scale
turbulent structures are filtered out. The small scale motions that are not explicitly
represented are modeled via a subgrid scale model.
(3.7)
where the symbol denotes time average. The time average of a quantity is defined as:
x, t
T
33
t T
x, t dt
t
(3.8)
Finally the RANS equations are derived by time averaging equations (3.2), (3.6) and
using the property
i , i' 0 as follows
uj
x j
(3.9)
ui' u 'j
ui u j
Sij
ui
1 p
t
x j
xi
x j
x j
(3.10)
uj
1 ui
Sij
2 x j
xi
(3.11)
Now for a three dimensional flow, we have in total 10 unknowns in the above equations
namely, 3-mean velocity components, 1-mean pressure, and 6-Reynolds stress tensor
components. And total equations available are four namely, 1-continuity equation (3.9) ,
and 3-momentum equation (3.10). This is an underdetermined system i.e. system of
equations represented in (3.9) and (3.10) are not closed (closure problem).
In order to close the above system of equations we must introduce a turbulence model.
This is achieved either by invoking eddy viscosity hypothesis or more directly by
introducing Reynolds-stress transport equation.
The eddy viscosity (or Boussinesq) hypothesis intrinsically assumes that Reynolds
stresses ui' u 'j scales linearly with the mean strain rate i.e.
2
ui' u 'j 2 t Sij k ij
3
34
(3.12)
where the constant t is known as turbulent eddy viscosity and k is the turbulent kinetic
energy
1 ' '
ui ui
2
(3.13)
The last term in equation(3.12) is required to guarantee that upon contraction the
equations remain correct. Finally one requires a model to describe the turbulent eddy
viscosity t , thereby closing the set of equation represented by equation (3.9) to (3.12).
There are a number of Eddy Viscosity Models (EVM) to describe t , all are classified
based on the number of equations involved in describing t . The simplest of the EVM are
the zero equation or Algebraic models (e.g. Baldwin and Lomax [68]). These models use
algebraic relation i.e. no PDE to compute t . In terms of complexity, the next hierarchal
EVMs are the one equation model. In this a model transport equation is solved for just
one turbulence quantity, namely, turbulent kinetic energy k . Both zero and one equation
EVMs are incomplete in the sense that both require the specification of a turbulence
parameter to describe t (mainly specification of mixing length). The widely used and
most accurate EVM are the two equation EVMs, where t is computed by solving two
transport equations for two turbulence quantities. These are also complete models in the
sense they dont require specification of any turbulence parameter.
via a blending function. By doing this the new model called as SST k amalgamates
the advantages of both models, thereby making it more versatile. Following are the
features of SST k turbulence model,
The blending function F1 in the model is defined in such a way so that it is zero at
the walls and gradually become equal to one away from the wall. This gradual
change causes the model to behave as k near to the wall and k away from
the wall.
In addition to the above the SST model also features a modification to eddy
viscosity to account for the transport of turbulent shear stress.
3) Menter [70], formulated the equations by first transforming the standard k model
into a k and formulation. Next the Wilcox k model is multiplied by function
F1 and the transformed equation are multiplied by 1 F1 . Finally both models are
added together to form what is named as SST k . The modeled equations for SST
k read as below,
k k ui
k
k
Pk Dk
t
xi
x j x j
(3.14)
ui
P D C
t
xi
x j x j
(3.15)
t
k
(3.16)
(3.17)
36
1
F1 1 F1
k ,1 k ,2
1
F1 1 F1
,1 ,2
(3.18)
(3.19)
where k,1 , k,2 , ,1 and ,2 are constant parameters. The turbulent viscosity t
appearing in equations(3.16) and (3.17) is given by
k
1
1 S F2
max ,
a1
(3.20)
lowRe correction factor introduced to dampen the eddy viscosity close to wall
0.024 Ret 6
1 Re t 6
(3.21)
where the term Ret k / is the turbulent Reynolds number. Functions F1 and F2
appearing in the above equations (3.19) and (3.20) are the blending functions (for more
information on blending functions reader is referred to Menter [69]). Pk and P represent
respectively the production of turbulent kinetic energy and the specific dissipation ,
given as
Pk min( t S
37
,10 k )
(3.22)
Pk
t
(3.23)
For incompressible flows, the parameters and appearing in the above equations are
defined as below
0.267 Re t 8 4
0.09
1 Re 84
t
(3.24)
1 9 Ret 2.95
1 Ret 2.95
(3.25)
F1 ,1 1 F1 ,2
(3.26)
where
where ,1 and ,2 are constant values. Further, the dissipation of turbulent kinetic
energy Dk and specific dissipation rate Dw are given by
Dk k
(3.27)
D 2
(3.28)
F1 i ,1 1 F1 i ,2
(3.29)
where
where i ,1 and i ,2 are constant values. Finally, the cross-diffusion term C , is a result of
transformation of standard k into k and quantities, required for blending with
Wilcox [38] k model, is represented as
38
C 2 1 F2 ,2
1 k
x j x j
(3.30)
'
(3.31)
Such decomposition is possible by using a low pass spatial filter. In finite volume
methods, the filtering operation is implicitly provided by the discretization itself and
there is no need for separate filtering operation. Leonard [71], gave the formal definition
of filter as a convolution integral, defined as
( x, t ) G x ( , t ) d
V
39
(3.32)
where integration is performed over the entire flow domain. G is the filtering kernel and
should satisfies the normalization condition
G( x ) d 1
(3.33)
G( x) 3
0
x / 2
(3.34)
other wise
Based on the suggestion of Deardroff [72], the filter width in anisotropic meshes is
defined based on cell volume
1/3
hx h y hz
(3.35)
Here hx , h y and hz represents grid spacing in x, y and z coordinate directions. Finally, the
governing equation for a constant property incompressible LES is obtain by spatially
filtering equation (3.2) and equation (3.3)
u j
0
x j
(3.36)
Sij ij sgs
ui ui u j
1 p
t
x j
xi
x j
x j
(3.37)
1 u u
Sij i j
2 x j xi
40
(3.38)
In the above equation the term ijsgs represents the subgrid scale tensor, defined as
ijsgs ui u j ui u j
(3.39)
The mathematical form of above equations looks similar to RANS (see equation (3.10)),
but there is a considerable difference between the two formalism, for above we have
i i and i 0 . Similarly to RANS the filtered LES equations (3.36) and (3.37) are
unclosed. The closure is achieved by modeling ijsgs by a suitable subgrid scale model
(SGS). There exists large number of closure models (such as mixed models, similarity
models etc,), but the most common and widely used are the eddy viscosity based SGS
models (Sagut [73], Pope [39])
1
ijsgs kksgs ij 2 t Sij
3
(3.40)
where Sij is the strain rate of large scale or resolved field. Equation (3.36)-(3.40) are still
not closed and requires the specification of t . On dimensional grounds one can write
t UL
(3.41)
ULS
(3.42)
where the term S indicates norm of the resolved strain rate magnitude and is given by
(3.43)
S 2 Sij Sij
The characteristic length L of the unresolved motions is taken proportional to filter width
(3.44)
L Cs
(3.45)
or
1/3
where hx h y hz
Smagorinsky model coefficient. Substituting relations (3.42) and (3.45) into equation
(3.41) yields
2
t L2 S = Cs S
(3.46)
In the above equations, the model coefficient C s is not a self-adjusting flow dependent
parameter and requires specification in order to close the above system of equations.
With respect to the Smagorinsky constant, several values have been proposed. For the
case of isotropic turbulence, 0.2 has been suggested, however, in a channel flow,
Deardorff [72] found that a smaller value 0.1 is better. Following the work of Lilly [75],
in the case of high Reynolds number, one can estimate the value of the constant as 0.17,
by assuming the filter width in the inertial subrange, where mean subgrid scale
production equals dissipation. Assuming a constant value for the model coefficient is
42
only justified when is in the inertial subrange. This is not valid in the viscous wall
regions as, assuming a constant value would imply a non-zero viscosity at the walls. Also
for laminar flow regions there should be no subgrid contribution, implying that the value
of the constant C s should be zero.
In order to overcome the aforementioned problems associated with the Smagorisnky
constant, Germano [76] proposed a dynamic procedure wherein, the model coefficient is
determined locally i.e. Cs Cs ( x, t ) . Such class of SGS models is known as Dynamic
Smagorinsky model (DSM). The model coefficient is determined locally by employing
an additional filter with a filter width larger than the grid spacing (test filter). In principle,
this permits identification of the fluctuating part of the resolved scale, and this is then
used to obtain an estimate of the unresolved stresses. A scale similarity is then invoked,
leading to the formulae for C s . The starting point of the dynamic model is the Germano
identity, given as
sgs
Lij Tij
ij
(3.47)
Tij u
i u j ui u j
(3.48)
where
and ijsgs is the subgrid stress tensor as defined in equation(3.39). The symbol ^
represents a second filtering operation with respect to a filter width which is usually
taken as 2 . Equation(3.47), can be further simplified to
Lij u
i u j ui u j
43
(3.48)
The term Lij with respect to test filter can be interpreted as the contribution to the
residual stress from the largest unresolved motions. Following equation(3.40) and (3.46),
we have
1
2
ijsgs ,d ijsgs kksgs ij 2 Cs S Sij
3
(3.49)
In the above equation, the superscript d represents the anisotropic part of stress tensor.
Equation(3.49), can also be written for the test filter width
1
Tijd Tij Tkk ij 2 Cs
3
S Sij
(3.50)
where the terms S and Sij are computed based on definition given in equation (3.43)
and (3.38) and by replacing u by u . The superscript d represents the anisotropic part
of stress tensor. Considering C s being uniform, we have quantity M ij defined as
2
M ij 2
S S ij 2
S Sij
(3.51)
(3.52)
The above term is nothing but the Smagorinsky model for the anisotropic part of Lij , i.e.
Ldij Lij Lkkij / 3 . Also it can be seen that to arrive at the above form of equation that Cs2
is assumed constant over a subdomain corresponding to the test filter width. As can be
now seen, both M ij and Ldij are known in terms of resolved u . This information can be
utilized to compute Cs2 . As shown by Lilly [75], the mean-square error given as
44
1 d
Lij Cs2 M ij
2
(3.52)
2
s
M ij Ldij
M kl M kl
M ij Lij
M kl M kl
(3.53)
With the above formulation of Cs2 , the dynamic model overcomes many of the
aforementioned limitations of constant Smagorinsky model. Even though there has been
considerable progress by using a dynamic procedure, the model leads to difficulties in
practical simulations; this will be discussed in Chapter 6, where a new model will be
proposed.
45
46
NV p
V
(3.54)
Here, N denotes total number of particles, Vp denotes volume of single particle, and V
total volume occupied by particle and fluid. According to classification map given by
Elghobashi [78] (see Figure 3.2) if p 10 6 , then particles have negligible effect on fluid
turbulence, this is termed as one way coupling. In this work and in most of
pharmaceutical aerosols the volume faction p remains less than 10-6, so one way
coupling is a reasonable assumption.
Y
Y
Y
uj
t
x j x j x j
47
(3.55)
where Y is the mass fraction, D is the effective particle diffusivity which for a spherical
particle and for relatively long particle time steps can be calculated based on StokesEinstein relation
kTCc
3 d p
(3.56)
Y Y Y '
(3.57)
Using above equation (3.57) and time averaging equation (3.55), results in
Y
Y
uj
t
x j x j
Y
D
x j
u 'jY '
x j
(3.58)
The last term u 'jY ' represents the scalar-flux term and is modeled based on a gradient
diffusion hypothesis
u'jY ' Dt
Y
x j
(3.59)
Using equation (3.59) into (3.58), yields time averaged mass transfer equation
Y
Y
Y
uj
D Dt
t
x j x j
x j
48
(3.60)
Dt
t
Sct
(3.61)
where Sct is the turbulent Schmidt number and relates turbulent momentum diffusivity
with turbulent mass diffusivity. In the case for Euler-Euler approach, assuming the wall
to be a perfect sink the boundary condition for the aerosols is considered to be Yw 0 ,
where Yw is the mass fraction at the wall [81].
u up
(3.62)
pd p
4
3 up u Cd
(3.63)
r , the particle is slow to respond to the fluctuations of the fluid flow and does not follow
the fluid so closely. In general, the particle relaxation time is dependent upon the particle
Reynolds number, Re p f up u d p / . In case of Stokesian drag, Re p 1 , the drag
coefficient Cd is equal to 24 / Re p . In such cases, r is dependent upon the material
properties of particle and fluid
p d p2
r
18
(3.64)
Various experimentally derived empirical relations exist in the literature (such as Schiller
and Neumann [82]), however, the one followed in this work is from Morsi and Alexander
[83], given by as
Cd a1
a2
a
32
Re p Re p
(3.65)
where Re p is the particle Reynolds number and coefficients ai ( i 1,2,3 ) are constants
as given by Morsi and Alexander [83], shown in Table 3.1. One of the important aspects
in Lagrangian approach is the representation of instantaneous fluid phase velocity which
in turn depends upon the methodology used for modeling the fluid phase i.e. DNS, LES
or RANS. In case of DNS is directly represented and there is no need for any modeling.
50
Re p
a1
a2
a3
<0.1
24
0.1<1.0
3.69
22.73
0.0903
1<10
1.222
29.1667
-3.8889
10<100
0.6167
46.5
-116.67
100<1000
0.3644
98.33
-2778
1000<5000
0.357
148.62
-4.75
5000<10000
0.46
-490.546
57.87
10000<50000
0.5191
-1662.5
5.4167
51
(3.65)
Here, u is the mean fluid phase velocity vector and u is the fluctuating velocity vector.
By computing the trajectories of a large enough number of particles, the effects of the
fluctuating flow field can be taken into account. The heart of EIM lies at reconstructing
the instantaneous field from the local mean values of velocity and turbulent intensity.
Assuming isotropic turbulence, we have
u2 v2 w2
2
k
3
(3.66)
Here, k is the turbulent kinetic energy determined through a turbulence model such as
k , k etc. Furthermore, in EIM at a given particle position x p , a hypothetical
eddy is considered, with the particle being assumed to be located at the center of the
eddy. Following Gosman and Ioannides [54], the velocity fluctuation in Cartesian
components of this hypothetical eddy is expressed as
u' N r
2
2
2
k , v' N r
k , w' N r
k
3
3
3
52
(3.67)
Here, te and tcross are respectively, the eddy life time and particle crossing time through
the eddy. When using the k model, te and tcross are estimated as
te
le
2k
(3.69)
le C3/4
k 3/2
(3.70)
le
tcross r ln 1
r u up
(3.71)
(3.72)
le
tcross r ln 1
r u up
53
where
u up
unp 1
unp un t / r
1 t / r
(3.73)
In order to update the particle position, a trapezoidal discretization scheme is used. The
relation for the particle position is given by
x np1 x np 0.5t unp1 upn
54
(3.74)
Chapter 4
Particle deposition in an extrathoracic
airway using RANS
Contents
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................55
4.2 Mathematical background....................................................................................................................57
4.2.1 EIM and correction function..........................................................................................................59
4.2.2 Isotropic EIM...................................................................................................................................59
4.2.3 Wang and James EIM.....................................................................................................................59
4.2.4 Helicity EIM.....................................................................................................................................60
4.3 Results and discussion..........................................................................................................................63
4.3.1 Test Geometry 1, 90 degree bend, Re=10000...............................................................................63
4.3.2Test Geometry 2, Simplified human upper airway model..........................................................66
4.4 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................72
4.1 Introduction
Quantifying the local and the total deposition fraction of the inhaled aerosols in a human
extrathoracic airway is essential for the development of effective drug delivery systems.
The complex extrathoracic airway (comprising of oral cavity, pharynx, larynx and
trachea) acts as an effective filter which limits the amount of inhaled aerosols that enter
the intrathoracic airways. The transport and deposition of these aerosols in the oral
airway present a significant health risk considering that these particles carry a large dose,
have a high probability for impaction and may generate large local regions of enhanced
particle deposition, referred to as hot spot. Such quantifications pose some serious
challenges for both experimental and numerical studies. From the numerical studies
point of view, the most important are, a) airway geometry used, and b) mathematical
equations involved with the modeling of air and particle transport.
55
addition, Wang and James [61] pointed out that, these functions are applicable only for
flows with a low Reynolds number against which they are calibrated. For example,
Matida et al. [10] calibrated the range of y 20 for a flow rate of 90 l/min and y 1
for a flow rate of 30 l/min. While such correction functions do improve the simulation of
particle deposition compared to classical EIM assuming isotropy, the main shortcoming
of this approach is that the correction functions were derived for ducted flow geometry.
Finally, it critically depends on the wall distance which is usually difficult to estimate in
complex geometries such as the human upper airway. The main contribution of this work
was to avoid these limitations by using an EIM methodology (further referred to as
helicity EIM) which incorporates anisotropy but without any a priori estimation of y+.
In the present work, we apply the classical EIM from Gosman and Ioannides [54]
(isotropic EIM), EIM with correction functions from Wang and James [61] (Wang
and James EIM) and helicity EIM to two test geometries, a) 900 bend pipe at
Re=10000, b) human upper air way model at a steady inhalation rate of 30 l/min and 60
l/min. The calculated numerical results were compared against the experimental results of
Pui et al. [90] and Verbanck et al. [45] for both test cases, respectively. The fluid phase
and the particle phase were solved numerically using FLUENT 13.0 solver; the helicity
EIM and Wang and James EIM was implemented in FLUENT 13.0 using userdefined functions.
employing SST k- turbulence model (Menter [69]) with low-Re corrections; the
mathematical formulation for turbulence modeling is not reiterated here (see Chapter 3).
The choice of the turbulence model is based on its ability for better handling transitional
flows as is the case in mouth-throat geometries compared to other widely used k-
turbulence model (Matida et al. [10], Zhang et al. [92], Xi and Longest [93], S T Jayaraju
[91]). Also for the sake of maintaining consistency we have kept the turbulence model
same for the both test cases discussed below.
The particle phase is solved employing Lagrangian particle equation of motion, described
in Chapter 3 and rewritten in non-dimensional form as below
dup
dt
up
Stk
g
Fr
(4.1)
where Stk and Fr are dimensionless Stokes and Froude number. The parameter Fr gives
the importance of inertial deposition versus deposition due to gravity and is given as,
Fr
U 02
Lg
(4.2)
where U 0 and L are the characteristic velocity and length, respectively. For the present
work Fr varies approximately from 50 in case of 30 l/min and 100 in case of 60 l/min,
implying that deposition by inertial impaction will be dominant. Moreover, considering
the high velocities inside human UAM (the velocity of the glottal jet reaches around 10
m/sec for 60 l/min) especially, in the extra-thoracic part, the gravity and Brownian force
in general have a very marginal effect on micron particle deposition. As such, the main
deposition mechanism in the upper airway is the deposition by inertial impaction (See
Finlay [49]). Following the above reasoning many authors like Longest and Xi [94],
Robinson et al. [95], Longest et al. [96] etc. ignore the gravity term. Therefore, in the
present chapter the gravity is ignored in equation 3.61. The volume fraction, defined as
58
the ratio of volume occupied by all particles and that occupied by the fluid, is of the order
of 1e-7 i.e. the heterogeneous system of fluid-particle is a dilute suspension.
2
2
2
k , v' N r
k , w' N r
k
3
3
3
(4.3)
u' fu N r
2
2
2
k , v' f v N r
k , w' f w N r
k
3
3
3
59
(4.4)
Here
f u 1 0.285( y 6)exp( 0.455( y 6) 0.53 )
f v 1 exp( 0.02 y )
(4.5)
f w 3 f u2 f v2
These correction functions are valid for y 80 . As already mentioned by Wang and
James (1999), the functions are applicable for flows with a low Reynolds number against
which they are calibrated. For example, Matida et al. [10] calibrated the range of y 20
for a flow rate of 90 l/min and y 1 for a flow rate of 30 l/min. The applicability of
above equation is restricted to cases where the flow essentially remains 1D for e.g.
channel flow, pipe flow etc. For cases that involve recirculation regions, flow separation
the use of equation (4.5) is questionable. Moreover, equation (4.5) is derived using
turbulent statistics of channel flow will be different from for e.g. turbulent statistics in a
duct flow. Therefore, equation (4.5) should be used with caution since the functions
provide an ad-hoc technique to account anisotropy which doesnt have any physical
meaning.
wall and in the wall normal direction. Since the correction functions fu and f w do not
the guarantee zero values on the wall for fluctuation velocity components u and w , this
can affect the particle deposition characteristics close to the wall via equation (4.1). In
general, it is believed that the deposition of particles on the wall is mainly affected by the
wall normal velocity fluctuation; as such there can be no observable differences in the
particles deposition efficiency, but there can be differences in the local variation of
particle deposition. In the helicity EIM, the correction functions do not depend on the
estimation of the wall distance parameter ( y ). The flow field is the only input that is
being used in these functions. Furthermore, the introduced functions are such that, when
applied to the velocity fluctuations, the turbulent kinetic energy k remains unchanged.
We shall model the velocity fluctuations as follows
u ' bGx N r
2
k,
3
v ' bG y N r
2
k,
3
w' bGz N r
2
k
3
(4.6)
In equation, bGx , bG y and bG z are the correction functions, where from Ghorbaniasl et al.
[97], one has
Gx
Gy
Gz
0.5 H x
H x2 H y2 H z2
0.5 H y
H x2 H y2 H z2
0.5 H z
2
x
H H y2 H z2
61
(4.7)
Here, the value of the term b is set to be 2 3 such that the computed turbulent kinetic
energy remains unchanged, the terms H x , H y and Hz are evaluated as,
H x x u,
H y y v,
(4.8)
H z z w
and symbol
(4.9)
Using these correction functions, zero values for velocity fluctuations are guaranteed on
the walls and in laminar regions. As can be seen from equation (4.6)-(4.9), the accuracy
of thehelicityEIM in predicting near wall fluctuations depends on the accurate
resolution of the velocity field especially in the vicinity of the wall. As such it becomes
important to have adequate cells near the walls so that the first cell adjacent to wall is in
the viscous sub-layer. By using these correction functions, zero values for velocity
fluctuations are guaranteed on the walls and in laminar regions. However, some obvious
limits can now be verified, in the limit when H x , H y and H z approaches zero or small
value, the terms Gx , G y and Gz reach a constant value of 0.28 and we get back the
original form of isotropic EIM. It should however be mentioned that in the case where
H x , H y and H z are all equal to zero equation (4.7) is ill defined such a condition is
overcome by putting a very small number (for e.g. 1e-30) at the denominator.
62
63
(4.10)
where I inlet is the inlet turbulent intensity which is consider as 5%, uinlet is the inlet
velocity magnitude, constant C 0.09 and d h is the hydraulic diameter. Using I inlet as
either 5% or 10% results in negligible change in the velocity or the turbulent kinetic
energy profile at entrance to the bend.
Figure 4.1, 90 degree test bend. (left) Geometry details; (right) mesh cut plane at middle of the
bend.
In the experiments, it is assumed that Re=10000 and Stokes number (Stk) varies in the
range 0.25-1.35, where Stk cc p d p2U in / 18 r
adopted and Stokes range of 0.05 Stk 1.5 is considered. The total number of particles
injected at the inlet is around 5000. However, it is to be mentioned that using 5000 or
1000 particles resulted in less than 3% change in the particle deposition efficiency. The
injection file for each of the particle size considered is generated in Matlab by uniformly
distributing injection points at the inlet. Figure 4.2, shows randomly distributed injection
points for a typical particle size. The particles were assumed to be carried by the flow i.e.
initial particle velocities were set equal to the inlet flow velocity.
64
Figure 4.3 shows total deposition efficiency defined as the ratio of number of particles
deposited to the total number of particles injected at the inlet. As illustrated the total
deposition efficiency is overpredicted by isotropic EIM, in particular for the Stk range
below 0.5. By contrast, the total deposition efficiencies simulated by Wang and James
EIM and the helicity EIM methods are in good agreement with the experimental curve
in the entire Stokes range considered. Interestingly, the latter two methods also show a
65
good agreement with the LES result of Breuer et al. [100]. With the latter being more
close to the experiments. At first glance, both Wang and James EIM and helicity
EIM looks giving identical results, in fact Wang and James EIM gives slightly better
results but the difference with helicity EIM is very marginal.
Figure 4.4, Simplified UAM model and respective compartments used in UAM
66
The present UAM model is discretized into 0.7 10 6 , 1.2 10 6 and 2.5 10 6 hexahedral
elements with a near wall clustering of elements and a stretching ratio of 1.1. The y+
value of the first layer of cells next to the wall is about 1. Figure 4.5 shows the mesh
corresponding to mesh of 1.2x106 details at different section planes.
The mesh requirement for the present test case has already been validated in the works of
Brouns [98] and Jayaraju [91]. Here we briefly presents normalized mean velocity
magnitude comparision from the three meshes plotted at four sections of the sagittal
plane namely, five mm above epiglottis and one, two and three thracheal diameters
downstream of glottis, are shown in Figure 4.6. Based on the comparison it can be infered
that the flow solution remain unchanged with the use of 2.5 10 6 or 1.2 10 6 cells.
For the fluid phase, we impose a uniform/top-hat velcoity at inlet and outflow/zero
gradient boundary condition at the outlet. For tubulent kinetic energy and specific
dissipation we use aforemtioned relations given in (4.10). For the particle phase, about
10,000 randomly distributed particles are injected at the inlet of the UAM model
correspeonding to each particle diameter (in the same way as done for bend test case).
The initial velocity of the particles is assumed to be the same as the fluid velocity at the
67
inlet, i.e., particles are carried by the flow. Since the airway walls are in general wet, it is
assumed that a particle is considered deposited as soon as it touches the wall. Using either
1.2 10 6 or 2.5 10 6 hexahedral cells results in less than 2% change for all particle
diameter. Based on the above convergence study we have chosen a mesh of size 1.2 10 6
cells for the rest of our numerical experiments.
(a)
(b)
c)
(d)
Figure 4.6, Comparison of normalized velocity component for different mesh counts. Section (a),
(b), (c) and (d) corresponds to five mm above epiglottis and one, two and three tracheal diameters
downstream of glottis, respectively
68
Further, the turbulence intensity level at the inlet is set at 5% for all simulations;
alternatively using turbulence intensity levels of either 5% or 10% resulted in less than
2% change in computed deposition efficiencies.
Figure 4.7, shows the total deposition efficiency simulation for 30 l/min (left panel) and
60 l/min (right panel) as a function of Stk Re 0.37 as proposed by Grgic et al. [101], where
Stokes (Stk) and Reynolds (Re) numbers are defined as,
p d p2U m
18 d m
U m d m
Re
Stk
(4.11)
In this equation, and p are the fluid phase and particle density, d m is the mean
hydraulic diameter U m is the mean velocity and is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid
phase. The terms d m and U m are defined as,
V
L
Q
Um
LV
dm 2
(4.12)
where Q is the flow rate, L is the mean cast length (326mm) and V is the cast volume
(90.6ml).
The empirical curve of Grgic et al. [101] (dashed line in Figure 4.7) was derived from a
representative set of experimental data for inspiration in different upper airway
geometries, and is shown alongside the experimental data points obtained from our
particular UAM cast (solid squares, corresponding to 3 and 6 m).
69
Figure 4.7, Inspiratory total deposition efficiencies, (left) 30 l/min and (right) 60 l/min; Particle
sizes range from 2 m-10 m; (connected symbols)-simulations; (disconnected symbols)experiments
As expected (Jayaraju et al. [44], Verbanck et al. [45]), the isotropic EIM simulation
largely over predicts the total deposition over the entire Stk Re0.37 range considered The
extent of over prediction for 60 l/min is even greater than for 30 l/min for corresponding
Stk Re0.37 values. In contrast, the helicity EIM and Wang and James EIM method
led to markedly lower total deposition values, bringing the entire deposition curve much
closer to the LES of Jayaraju et al. [44], empirical curve of Grgic et al. [101] and to the
experimental data points obtained in this UAM (solid squares), certainly in the low
Stk Re0.37 range. When actually comparing the helicity EIM simulations with the
experimental data obtained in the UAM (solid squares) the remaining discrepancy is
mostly marked for the largest particle size (6m). While absolute differences in case of
6m are rather large (18% vs 36% for 30l/min and 50% vs 80% for 60 l/min), it should
be borne in mind that these data points are on a very steep part of the deposition curve.
70
Figure 4.8, Inspiratory relative deposition efficiencies, (upper) 30 l/min and (lower) 60 l/min;
(left) 3m and (right) 6m; (connected symbols) simulations; (disconnected solid squares,experiments)
In Figure 4.8, we consider the relative deposition patterns within the UAM
compartments, (a) oral, (b) pharynx, (c) larynx, and (d) trachea, i.e., deposition in each
compartment relative to total deposition for each condition.
Relative deposition
efficiencies are obtained by normalizing the total number of particles deposited in a given
UAM compartment with the total number of particle deposited in the entire UAM. At
lower flow rate (upper panels) the relative deposition trend in experiments shows that one
has a subsequent decrease in relative deposition efficiency moving from oral
compartment to larynx and then a slight increase in trachea. This trend is reproduced by
71
Wang and James EIM and helicity EIM but not by isotropic EIM. In the case of
isotropic EIM for 3m (upper left panel) the relative deposition first decreases from
oral to pharynx and then subsequently increases. This is mainly because we have lower
deposition in oral and pharynx compartment as such more is available for latter
compartments. For the case of 6m (upper right panel), the relative deposition first
decreases from oral to pharynx remains almost same in larynx and subsequently
increases. At higher flow rate (lower panels) the isotropic EIM is able to predict
relative deposition trends observed during experiments better than at lower flow rate
(upper panels). In contrast, both Wang and James EIM and helicity EIM are able to
predict the experimental deposition patterns better than isotropic EIM at both the flow
rates, with both the models giving comparable results.
Altogether, the total and the relative deposition efficiencies in the UAM are simulated
more accurately by the helicity EIM and the Wang and James EIM methods with
isotropic EIM greatly overpredicting total deposition efficiency with relative deposition
trends comparable to experiments only at higher flow rate. The advantage of the helicity
EIM in comparison with the Wang and James EIM is that it does not require any
estimation of y+, which in complicated geometries like UAM is troublesome.
4.4 Conclusions
In the framework of RANS coupled with EIM for studying the particle deposition, an
anisotropic eddy interaction model for the particle deposition has been proposed. The
capacity of the model has been investigated through two test cases, a) 90 degree bend
pipe and b) simplified UAM. The proposed model was compared against the existing
classical EIM and that of Wang and James EIM.
Consistent with the observations made in literature the isotropic assumption involved
with the classical EIM resulted in an overprediction of total deposition efficiency in the
both test cases for the entire stokes range considered. The only case where the results
72
from the classical EIM seem to be comparable with experiments is the relative deposition
efficiency plot for second test case at 60 l/min. But the total deposition efficiency was
greatly overpredicted. In contrast, using anisotropic model of Wang and James EIM
and the proposed EIM model resulted in the reduction of total deposition efficiency and
the results compared well with existing literature.
In the both test cases, Wang and James EIM was seen giving slightly better particle
results than the proposed EIM, however, as discussed before, the damping functions used
in Wang and James EIM is questionable. Especially in cases that involve recirculation
zones, flow separation and where both laminar and turbulent regions exist. Also, the
method requires a priori estimation of y which is not known beforehand. As such the
method utilizes an adhoc approach for accounting flow anisotropies in particle
calculations.
Unlike Wang and James EIM, the proposed EIM do not uses any adhoc approach and
accounts flow anisotropy directly from the calculated flow field. The results obtained
from the proposed method compared well not only in terms of total deposition efficiency
but also in terms of relative deposition patterns. In fact, in the UAM for particle sizes less
4m, the results were very close to experiments for both flow rates. As discussed, the
accuracy of the proposed model is dependent on the computed flow-field, which will be
studied in more details in the following chapter.
73
74
Chapter 5
Performance of helicity eddy interaction
model
Contents
5.1 Introduction.75
5.2 Simulation condition...76
5.3 Results and discussion....77
5.3.1 Inspiration..........................................................................................................................................77
5.3.2 Expiration...........................................................................................................................................81
5.3.3 Influence of inflow condition and flow field data...........................................................................85
5.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................95
5.1 Introduction
The previous chapter aimed at introducing the helicity EIM model in general. It was
discussed that the helicity EIM, by the way it is formulated, is heavily dependent on the
accurate representation of the flow field. This in turn depends upon two upstream flow
conditions, a) inlet velocity profile and initial particle distribution, b) turbulence model
used. For example, Longest and Vinchurkar [102] showed that the validation of
fluid/particle simulation against experimental data is crucially dependent on inlet
conditions, i.e., inlet velocity profile and initial particle distribution profile.
Therefore, in this chapter the quality and capability of the helicity EIM is further studied
model through a sensitivity analysis of the model to the turbulence model and to the
upstream flow conditions. We will include the behavior of the model upon the particle
sizes when the flow configuration is reversed i.e. during the expiration breathing phase. It
is shown experimentally (Verbanck et al. [45]) that for particle sizes 3-6 m, total
75
deposition efficiency in an upper airway model is similar during the inspiratory and
expiratory breathing phase, but the local aerosol deposition patterns for both flow
directions are completely different. During inspiration, the aerosol preferentially deposits
in the oral compartment, while during expiration, local aerosol concentration is highest in
the pharyngeal compartment.
In the present work, we will apply the helicity EIM methodology to the prediction of total
and local deposition patterns during both the inspiratory and expiratory breathing phase.
In particular, we will investigate whether the preferential deposition in the pharynx
region during expiration, which could not be reproduced at all by isotropic EIM, can be
more reliably predicted using helicity EIM. The influence of the inlet boundary
conditions corresponding to inspiratory and expiratory deposition measurements will also
be scrutinized. In particular, the influence of top-hat/uniform inlet velocity and parabolic
inlet velocity profiles on aerosol deposition will be assessed. The choice of considering
top-hat and parabolic inlet velocity profile for numerical experiments is related to the
experimental set-up (schematic shown in Figure 5.1) employed for conducting particle
deposition experiments. It can be seen that inlet to the UAM has additional tube
connectors and we assume flow to be laminar before entering the UAM. The actual
velocity profile is not available because in experiments an additional facility to measure
velocity profile was not in the scope. Finally, we will briefly investigate the dependence
of helicity EIM model upon the turbulence model used. This dependence will be shown
by comparing results from SST k- model and Std. k- model.
experimental data will be demonstrated for 3 and 6 m, and then results for rest particle
sizes (2, 4, 8 and 10 m) will be demonstrated.
77
Figure 5.2, Inspiratory total deposition efficiencies, (left) 30 l/min and (right) 60 l/min; Particle
sizes range from 2m-10m; (connected symbols) simulations; (disconnected symbols)experiments
In Figure 5.3, we consider the relative deposition patterns within the UAM
compartments, (a) oral, (b) pharynx, (c) larynx, and (d) trachea, i.e., deposition in each
compartment relative to total deposition for each condition. Considering top hat or
parabolic inlet profiles hardly affects these results. In fact, the influence of the inlet
profile was only noteworthy for helicity EIM simulations, and mainly so for the two
intermediate values, 3 m at 60 l/min (Figure 5.3; lower left panel) and 6 m at 30 l/min
(Figure 5.3; upper right panel). In both these cases, the top-hat inlet velocity profile
resulted in an overestimation of deposition in the pharyngeal compartment, at the expense
of that attributable in the oral compartment. Compared to the top-hat inlet profile, the
parabolic profile showed an increased relative deposition in the oral cavity, such that
relatively less was available for deposition in the pharynx, consistent with experiments.
In order to get a general overview on the effect of the EIM models and inlet profiles,
Figure 5.4 illustrates the relative deposition efficiencies for the rest particle size (2, 4, 8
and 10m) as predicted from particle simulation. As can be seen from these plots the
relative deposition trends and the effect of inlet profiles as observed for 3 and 6 m
(Figure 5.3) also holds true for other particle sizes. In summary of the inspiratory case,
the helicity EIM with parabolic inlet velocity profile gives a satisfactory agreement of
78
simulations with experiments in terms of total deposition (Figure 5.2) and of local
deposition patterns (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3, Inspiratory relative deposition efficiencies, (upper) 30 l/min and (lower) 60 l/min;
(left) 3m and (right) 6m; (connected symbols) simulations; (disconnected solid squares,experiments)
5.3.2 Expiration
Figure 5.5 shows the simulations corresponding to Figure 5.2, but for expiration instead
of inspiration. Experimental data points obtained for 3 and 6m particles at 30 l/min (left
panel) and 60 l/min (right panel) are also shown for comparison (solid squares), but
unlike for inspiration, no empirical curve exists for expiration. As was the case for
inspiration, isotropic EIM overestimates total deposition efficiency for 3 m particles at
79
both flow rates, while helicity EIM produces total DE values that are closer to the
experimental data. For the large particle size (6 m), experimental data are better
matched by the isotropic EIM, while helicity EIM consistently underestimates total
deposition. For both isotropic EIM and helicity EIM simulations, the parabolic inlet
velocity profile led to greater total deposition than the top-hat velocity profile, as was the
case for inspiration (Figure 5.2). However, the effect of inlet velocity profile was greater
in magnitude for expiration than for inspiration.
80
Figure 5.4, Inspiratory relative deposition efficiencies, (left) 30 l/min and (right) 60 l/min; All
panels top to bottom correspond to 2, 4, 8and 10 m
81
Figure 5.5, Expiratory total deposition efficiencies, (left) 30 l/min and (right) 60 l/min; Particle
sizes range from 2m-10m; (connected symbols)simulations; (disconnected square symbols)experiments
The impact of using a particular inlet velocity profile in association with a particular EIM
becomes clearer when examining local deposition patterns for expiration (Figure 5.6).
The helicity EIM associated with the parabolic inlet profile was the only modality which
mimicked the experimental observation of greater relative pharyngeal versus oral
deposition efficiency.
In summary of the expiratory case, it can be concluded that for the smaller particles (3
m) helicity EIM adequately simulates both total deposition and local deposition
patterns, if it is used in association with a parabolic inlet profile. This also holds for
relative distribution of the larger particles (6 m) but in this case the total deposition is
largely underestimated.
82
Figure 5.6, Expiratory relative deposition efficiencies, (upper) 30 l/min and (lower) 60 l/min;
(left) 3m and (right) 6m; (connected symbols)simulations; (disconnected square symbols)experiments
As was done for inspiratory flows, an overview of the general behavior of local
deposition for the remaining particle sizes is shown in Figure 5.7. Unlike the inspiratory
flows, the local deposition trend during expiratory flows varies depending on the particle
size and on the flow rate. In the case for 30 l/min flow rate, the preferential deposition as
observed for helicity EIM with a parabolic profile for 3 and 6m (Figure 5.6) exits only
till 8m. Similarly in the case of 60 l/min flow rate, this preferential deposition is
observed only up to 6 m. In the extra-thoracic region, the inertial impaction is the only
dominant mechanism by which particle deposition takes place (Finlay [49]).
83
Figure 5.7, Expiratory relative deposition efficiencies, (left) 30 l/min and (right) 60 l/min; All
panels top to bottom correspond to 2, 4, 8and 10 m; (connected symbols) simulations
84
Further Grgic et al. [101], demonstrated that in the extra-thoracic region the deposition is
influenced by both Stokes and Reynolds number. This implies that for a given Reynolds
number and particle density, the particle deposition is influenced by the Stokes number or
in other words the particle size. Therefore, the variation observed in the simulated local
deposition trend is attributed to the fact that, as the particle size and hence the particle
inertia increases, it becomes less sensitive to flow fluctuations. This will be demonstrated
in the following subsection where a comparison will be made between the helicity EIM
model prediction and the prediction using the mean flow i.e. not accounting flow field
fluctuations in the particle calculations.
85
Figure 5.8, (left) UAM with connector tubing (shown in shaded area) at the inlet for inspiratory
breathing phase setup; (right) UAM with 900 elbow bend connector (shown in shaded area) at the
inlet for expiratory breathing phase setup. The additional mesh for the connector tubings are
(left) 0.4 x 106 and (right) 0.8 *106 hexahedral cells.
In the left panels of Figure 5.9, we compare for an inspiratory flow of 60 l/min, helicity
EIM simulation in the UAM with connector tube (crosses) to those in the UAM without
connector tube (triangles). In the latter case, we alternatively considered a top-hat (open
triangle) or a parabolic inlet profile (closed triangle); these two latter curves are the same
curves as in Figure 5.2 (right panel). Exactly the same is done for the expiratory mode
setup (Figure 5.8, right panel), where a 90 degree bend needed to be introduced
experimentally, in order to preserve the UAM orientation with respect to gravity. In the
right panels of Figure 5.9, we compare helicity EIM simulations for expiration in the
UAM with connector tubing (crosses), to that in the UAM without connector tube. Again,
in the latter case, a top-hat (open triangle) or parabolic (closed triangle) inlet profile was
considered (same curves as in Figure 5.5 right panel).
86
Figure 5.9, (top) Total deposition efficiency for particle sizes ranging from 2-10m at 60 l/min,
(bot-tom) relative deposition efficiency for 6m at 60 l/min. (left) inspiration, (right) expiration.
While Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 had shown that the inspiratory simulations in the UAM
without any connector tube were satisfactory when using helicity EIM with parabolic
inlet velocity profile, this conclusion still holds when validating this against the
simulations with connector tube used in experiments (Figure 5.9, left panels). In fact, the
inspiratory simulations without the connector tube were closest to those with the
connector tube (crosses) if a parabolic profile (closed triangle), as opposed to the top-hat
profile (open triangle), inlet condition was considered.
Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 had shown that the expiratory simulations in the UAM without
connector tubing were only satisfactory in terms of relative deposition when using
87
helicity EIM with parabolic inlet velocity profile. Total deposition was still
underestimated for the larger particle size (6m) with the parabolic inlet, but less so than
with the top-hat inlet profile. It is shown in Figure 5.9 (right panel) that simulations
without connector tubing and parabolic inlet condition are the ones most closely
resembling the simulations incorporating experimental connector tubing.
Overall, the addition of connector tubing on both in- and expiratory sides tends to
increase the deposition, as could be expected, especially at the higher flow rates. On the
inspiratory side, this can be attributed to a reduction (of 47%) in cross sectional lumen
area in the tubing connecting the aerosol generator to UAM inlet, increasing local
velocities. On the expiratory side, the bend and some additional constrictions at tube
transitions could be responsible. All things considered, the influence of connector tubing
was relatively small in terms of total deposition, for both in- and expiration (at least when
selecting the parabolic inlet profile when no connector tubing is considered). However, in
terms of relative deposition, the addition of the connector tubing clearly indicates that the
choice of the inlet profile is crucial for adequate simulations in the UAM without
connector tubing, particularly for expiration (Figure 5.9, right lower panel). It is shown
that the parabolic velocity profile is the inlet condition that leads to the experimentally
observed greater relative deposition in the pharynx, which cannot be obtained when
imposing a top-hat inlet condition.
88
Figure 5.10, Impact of top hat and parabolic inspiratory velocity profiles imposed either directly
at UAM inlet (upper and middle panels) or via connector tubing (bottom panel). Velocity
magnitude contours, flow streamlines in the central sagittal plane, and particle distribution
profiles at different UAM stations are shown for 60 l/min
89
Figure 5.10 illustrates for inspiration, the fluid dynamic differences between the UAM
and the UAM with connector tubing, when a top-hat inlet profile is considered in both
cases. It can be noted that, (i) the velocity profile at the UAM inlet is no longer top-hat,
(ii) the velocity at the core of the UAM inlet is greater in the presence of the connector
tubing (6.5 m/s versus 4.9 m/sec without connector), (iii) the streamline convergence due
to the constriction between the connector and the UAM inlet results in particles being
concentrated more in the core region where flow velocities are higher. Hence, the main
impact of the connector tubing in the case of inspiration is that it causes the flow
streamlines to converge rapidly, thereby increasing the velocity magnitude and forcing
the particles into a region with higher velocities. This explains the greater total deposition
(Figure 5.9; upper left panel) and enhanced relative deposition in the oral compartment
(Figure 5.9; lower left panel) for inspiration when top hat inlet velocities are used with
the connector (crosses) versus that directly at the UAM inlet (open triangles). Despite
some apparent differences in flow patterns depending on inlet velocity profiles, aerosol
patterns in crucial locations within the UAM are very similar across all conditions
considered (Figure 5.10). This explains the relatively small differences observed in
Figure 5.9 (left panels) across all conditions considered. This is not the case for
expiration. Figure 5.11 illustrates for expiration, the fluid dynamic differences between
the UAM (leftmost panel) and the UAM with connector (rightmost panel), when a top-hat
inlet profile is considered in both cases. It can be noted that,(i) even though the maximum
velocity magnitude of the jet originating at the glottis are similar, the jet in the UAM
without connector is able to more readily negotiate the sudden change in flow path and is
directed towards the oral compartment (in the UAM with connector, this jet is directed
towards the pharynx top, thereby causing an impingement of the flow on the wall) (ii)
there is marked difference in terms of the flow structures developing into the pharynx
compartment. (iii) due to the differences in flow fields, the particle distribution in section
a-a to d-d is quite different, with more particles being trapped in the pharynx top when
the UAM is considered with connector.
90
Figure 5.11, Impact of expiratory velocity profiles: (left and middle panel) are namely Top-Hat
and Parabolic without connector tubing; (right panel) Top-Hat with connector tubing. Velocity
magnitude contours, streamlines in the central sagittal plane, and particle distribution profiles at
different UAM stations are shown for 60 l/min.
Hence, the main impact of additional tubing on the UAM deposition simulations for
expiration is that the flow structure and particle distribution both contribute to an
91
increased relative deposition in the pharynx compartment. This explains the greater
relative deposition in the pharynx compartment (Figure 5.9; lower right panel) for UAM
with connector rather than without connector, when top hat inlet velocities are used in
both cases. When simulating particle deposition in the UAM without connector, the inlet
condition which best mimics the UAM with connector are the parabolic inlet profile
(closed triangle). Figure 5.11 (middle panel) indeed shows that in the corresponding
particle distribution (sections a-a to d-d) particles are concentrated closer to the
pharyngeal walls, and hence an enhanced pharyngeal deposition during expiration can be
obtained in an UAM without connector, if a parabolic profile at the UAM inlet is used.
In order to examine the sensitivity of the bigger size particle sizes (8 and 10 m) during
inspiratory and expiratory flows, a small numerical experiment was conducted. For this
particular numerical simulation, we include the connector tubing present in during
inspiratory and expiratory breathing phase. We compare the helicity EIM model
prediction with that of mean flow predictions i.e. particle tracking without any
fluctuations.
Figure 5.12, Total deposition efficiency; (left panel) Inspiration; (right panel) Expiration for 60
l/min
Figure 5.12 illustrates the total deposition efficiency for the case of 60 l/min during
inspiratory and expiratory breathing phase. On comparing the predicted total deposition
values between helicity EIM (indicated by crosses) and mean flow (indicated by white
92
squares), we can observe two interesting facts, a) For lower Stk Re 0.37 particles sizes, 26 m, the effect of fluctuations is clearly visible during both inspiratory and expiratory
flows. If one does not account the flow fluctuations in the particle simulation the total
deposition values are severely underpredicted. This underprediction greatly improves
when one account the fluctuation as can be seen from the helicity EIM (crosses), b) for
higher Stk Re 0.37 range (particle size, 8-10m), an interesting observation is that the
underprediction seen in the Mean flow predictions for lower particle sizes improves and
the results becomes closer to those of the helicity EIM. This observation implies that as
the particle sizes increases (and hence the inertia) the particle relaxation time also
increases and as such it becomes less sensitive to the flow fluctuations as expected form
physical arguments. Also, the similarity between the prediction from helicity EIM and
mean flow for bigger particle sizes shows the capability of the proposed model in
predicting the correct behavior i.e. particles with higher inertia should be less sensitive to
flow fluctuations. In order to see whether the proposed model helicity EIM also gives
correct behavior for local deposition for bigger particle sizes when compared against the
mean flow results, Figure 5.13 shows the local deposition for (8-10m) for inspiratory
and the expiratory case.
As seen from Figure 5.13, for the bigger particle sizes, the relatively deposition
efficiencies are similar between the helicity EIM and the mean flow particle simulations.
Thereby, giving more confidence to the proposed model as it correctly captures particle
physics i.e. bigger size particles are less sensitive to flow fluctuations.
The accuracy of helicity EIM model is directly related to the computation of flow field
data via three correction functions (Gx , G y , Gz ) (see equation 4.7-4.8). In the case of
RANS this inturn is dependent on the turbulence model used. As mentioned before, the
Reynolds number range that exits in the present UAM is in the transitional regime i.e.
both laminar and turbulence regions exists. Moreover, the flow field as seen in Figure
5.10 and Figure 5.11 contains recirculation regions; therefore a turbulence model should
be such which can capture such regimes accurately.
93
Figure 5.13, Relative deposition efficiencies,(top) 8m, (lower) 10m; (left) inspiration, (right)
Expiration
Figure 5.14, Dependence of helicity EIM on the turbulence model; (left) Inspiration, (right)
Expiration for 60l/min
94
5.4 Conclusion
In this chapter we have shown the dependence of previously proposed helicity EIM
model towards the computed flow-field by undertaking various numerical experiments.
The dependence was shown with respect to the upstream flow condition by using TopHat and Parabolic inlet velocity profile and later by adding physical constrictions that
were present during the experiments. We have also discussed the dependence of the
model with respect to the choice of turbulence model used. Additionally we have tested
the performance of helicity EIM on the UAM for a case where flow direction was
reversed i.e. during expiration.
In the case of inspiration, overall the use of top-hat or parabolic inlet velocity profile
resulted in almost similar total deposition efficiency using either isotropic EIM or helicity
EIM for 30 l/min and 60 l/min. However, in terms of relative deposition efficiency,
95
compared to the top-hat inlet velocity profile, the parabolic profile showed an increased
relative deposition in the oral cavity, such that relatively less was available for deposition
in the pharynx, consistent with experiments. The sensitivity is more for helicity EIM
than compared isotropic EIM and is observed either with lower flow rate (30 l/min) and
with bigger particle size or at higher flow rate and with smaller particle size.
The dependence of total deposition efficiency with respect to the choice of inlet velocity
profile was most marked in case for expiration, where using parabolic inlet velocity
profile improves the deposition results for both isotropic and helicity EIM model more
for particle sizes less than 6m. The same is reflected in relative deposition efficiency,
where the preferential deposition in pharynx as observed during experiments is mimicked
only when using parabolic inlet velocity profile and with helicity EIM. The isotropic EIM
performs the worst again giving confidence in the proposed helicity EIM model.
The addition of connector tubing on both inspiratory and expiratory sides was observed
to increase the deposition, more at the higher flow rates. On the inspiratory side, this can
be attributed to a reduction (of 47%) in cross sectional lumen area in the tubing
connecting the aerosol generator to UAM inlet, increasing local velocities. On the
expiratory side, the bend and some additional constrictions at tube transitions could be
responsible. All things considered, the influence of connector tubing was relatively small
in terms of total deposition, for both inspiratory and expiration (at least when selecting
the parabolic inlet profile when no connector tubing is considered). However, in terms of
relative deposition, the addition of the connector tubing clearly indicates that the choice
of the inlet profile is crucial for adequate simulations in the UAM without connector
tubing, particularly for expiration. Finally, the dependence with respect to the choice of
turbulence model was investigated and was shown as the accuracy of flow increases
prediction from helicity EIM improves.
In conclusion in this chapter, we have shown how comparative simulations with different
inlet conditions can lead to a reasonable choice of the inlet profile which most likely
represents that in the experimental aerosol deposition study. In particular, the preferential
deposition in the oral compartment during inspiration and preferential deposition in the
96
97
98
Chapter 6
Rotational based Smagorinsky model
Contents
6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................99
6.2 Description of RoSM model.................................................................................................................101
6.3 Results and discussion..........................................................................................................................107
6.3.1 Fully developed turbulent channel flow......................................................................................108
6.3.2Fully developed turbulent flow in a square duct.........................................................................113
6.3.3Flow over a circular cylinder........................................................................................................117
6.3.4Application to a complex geometry..............................................................................................122
6.4 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................126
6.1 Introduction
It was seen in Chapter 5, prediction of particle deposition inside human airways is largely
dependent upon the prediction of flow. In case of RANS this is mainly dependent upon
the turbulence and EIM model used. In past few years the use of LES instead of RANS is
gaining popularity. This is mainly because of the availability of larger computing
capabilities. The use of large eddy simulation (LES) is now not limited to academic
geometries only. However, still some issue regarding the use of LES in particular to the
SGS model applied remains. This chapter therefore concerns with flow prediction using
LES and in particular implementation and validation of a new SGS model recently
proposed at VUB.
LES is a methodology wherein, the small scales and their interactions with the large
scales are modeled via the subgrid scale turbulent stress tensor. In regions where
turbulence is inhomogeneous and shear plays a dominant role, the influence of the
subgrid scale (SGS) model is critical. The flow can also be very sensitive to the presence
99
of SGS dissipation in regions where the flow is transitional. For this reason, much effort
has been put into the development of good SGS models. Consequently, a large number of
SGS models are available in the literature. Most of the SGS models are eddy viscosity
based models [74], [76], but also scale similarity models [103] and mixed models [104]
which combine the eddy viscosity and the scale similarity models, have been developed.
The most common approach to date is to use the eddy viscosity based models. The first
proposed eddy viscosity based model is the Smagorinsky model [74]. In the derivation of
this model, the small scales are assumed to be in equilibrium while they dissipate entirely
and instantaneously all the energy received from the large scales. As mentioned in
Chapter 3, following are the major deficiencies of Smagorisnky Model,
In order to overcome the inherent deficiency involved with the value for the model
coefficient, the dynamic procedure proposed by Germano et al. [76] is used. This
procedure is too complex and expensive, becoming more difficult to implement when
unstructured grids are used. Another drawback of the dynamic procedure is its numerical
instability when the coefficient values become negative and/or its variation is high in
space and time, which needs some stability control algorithm.
In this work, we implement and evaluate an efficient formulation for determining the
Smagorinsky model coefficient developed at VUB which reduces the computational cost
significantly and is easy to implement on unstructured grids. The coefficient of the
100
subgrid scale model is a function of the flow solution, including the translational and
rotational velocity field contributions. Results of this approach will demonstrate that the
behavior of the model coefficient in practical simulations is actually far from constant.
The method allows vanishing eddy viscosity through the model coefficient vanishing at
walls, and in regions where the flow is laminar. The advantage of this method is that the
coefficient of the SGS model can be optimized without using the dynamic procedure
thereby saving almost 25% on computational cost. In addition, the method guarantees the
model coefficient to be always positive with low fluctuation in space and time. This
property avoids using the numerical stabilization procedure, which becomes very
complicated for complex flows.
The quality of the methodology will be investigated through the following test cases,
I) Fully developed channel flow with Reynolds numbers of 180 based on friction velocity
and channel half-width.
II) Fully developed flow through a rectangular duct of square cross section at Re 300 .
III) A smooth subcritical flow past a stationary circular cylinder, at a Reynolds number of
3900, where the wake is fully turbulent but the cylinder boundary layers remain laminar.
IV) Finally, the ability of the method will be tested in a CT-based simplified human
upper airway model (UAM), where the flow is transitional.
(6.1)
scale. In this hypothesis as pointed out by Ghorbaniasl et al. [97], the Smagorisnky length
scale is determined by evaluating three characteristic length scale lx , l y and lz associated
with the unresolved motions in x-, y- and z- directions in three dimensional flows. These
characteristic lengths are determined by specifying a characteristic velocity U scaled by
a variable with time dimension. The method is explained below and starts by defining
the length scale in x- direction, l x
lx U
(6.2)
The specification of the characteristic velocity U and is given by noting that, the
subgrid scale models in LES approximates the off diagonal component of Reynolds stress
term. This implies that the characteristic length of equation (6.1) can be assumed to be
proportional to the product of cross velocity terms. Here, for the cross velocity terms, we
shall involve the resolved translational velocity and the resolved rotation rate.
Figure 6.1 depicts the large (resolved) and the subgrid (unresolved) scales for a given
grid size Turbulence is generally visualized as consisting of eddies of different sizes that
overlap in space. The resolved unsteady eddies carry unresolved eddies. At a particular
position in the computational domain, the resolved eddy has a resolved translational
velocity u x , u y , u z and a resolved rotation rate x , y , z as shown in Figure 6.1.
Based on the background information of the resolved motion, we specify the
characteristic velocity U * of equation (6.2) as the cross velocity term associated with the
x -component of the translational velocity, u x . One obtains this cross velocity term from
the resolved rotation rate around the x axis as shown in Figure 6.1(b). It is seen that the
cross velocity term can be approximated as the product of the resolved rotation rate x
and the rotation radius / 2 . That is
U * x
102
(6.3)
where the symbol | | stands for the absolute value of the quantity and the resolved
rotation rate x is given by
1 u u
x z y
2 y
z
(6.4)
Now, the variable of equation (6.2) associated with the x direction based on the x component of the translational velocity, ux is specified as
ux
D
(6.5)
lx x x
2 D
(6.6)
Similarly, the characteristic lengths in the y - and z -directions associated with the
hypothetical eddy are expressed as,
uy
ly y
2 D
lz z z
2 D
(6.7)
1 u x uz
2 z
x
1 u
u
z y x
2 x
y
(6.8)
where
103
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.1, (a) Resolved and unresolved eddies in turbulent flow field. (b) Translational velocity
and rotation rate components in x, y and z directions.
2D
l y yu y
2D
lz z uz
(6.9)
g xux i y u y j z uz k
(6.10)
104
lx
g
i
2D
ly
g
j
2D
lz
g
k
2D
(6.11)
In order to have a dimensionally consistent equation, the quantities on the left- and righthand-side of equation (6.11) should have the same units. Therefore, the normalizing term
D g
u u u
x x
z z
(6.12)
Finally, the Smagorinsky length scale of the unresolved motions is specified based on the
length scale of the smallest resolved motion. Therefore, the Smagorinsky characteristic
length scale associated with the unresolved motion is taken as the minimum of l x , l y and
l z . That Is
L min l x , l y , l z
(6.13)
Applying the length scale defined in equation (6.13) to the eddy viscosity modeled by
Smagorinsky in equation (3.45), one obtains the eddy viscosity as follows,
t min l x , l y , lz
(6.14)
Further, using equation (6.11) one rewrites equation (6.14) in the following form,
t min Gx , G y , Gz
105
(6.15)
with
lx x ux
2D
yu y
l
Gy y
2D
z uz
l
Gz z
2D
Gx
(6.16)
Equation (6.15) together with equation (6.16) forms the developed subgrid scale model.
Clearly, this relation provides an expression which is easy to implement in an
unstructured NavierStokes solver. The rotation rate being an essential ingredient of this
model, it is referred as rotation rate based Smagorinsky model (RoSM).
When comparing the definition of t in equation (6.15) with the Smagorinsky model
given in equation 3.45, the term min G x , G y , Gz in equation (6.15) is nothing but the
Smagorinsky constant, Cs , i.e.
Cs min Gx , Gy , Gz
(6.17)
In principle, this equation provides an accurate formula which can be used to determine
the Smagorinsky constant. In addition, this relation is easy to use in practice, since
quantities such as the resolved translational velocity and the resolved rotation rate are
readily available in large eddy simulations. As can be seen, the RoSM model evaluates Cs
dynamically but without the need for any dynamic procedure. Also, there is no more need
for damping functions or other special near-wall treatments.
Some obvious limits can now be verified for the model coefficient Cs . First, from
equation (6.16) and (6.17) , we readily see that Cs 0 . Further, from equation (6.12) ,
one can see that the value of
that the maximum value of the coefficient Cs occurs when one has the following
condition,
Gx G y Gz
(6.18)
x u x y u y z uz a
(6.19)
And
Cs ,max
a
2 3a 2
0.2886
(6.20)
Equation (6.20) is independent of the value of a, where a is a nonzero number. The only
case when Cs is not well conditioned numerically is at the walls, since u x , u y and uz
become zero simultaneously (i.e. a 0 ) resulting in a null denominator. This situation is
avoided by scaling up the denominator D by a very small number (epsilon). In this case,
Cs will be zero at the walls. As will be seen from the posteriori analysis, Cs value goes
to zero at the walls and the behavior of the model coefficient near the walls is comparable
with that of the dynamic Smagorinsky.
Overall, in the context of the present procedure, the model coefficient Cs varies between
0 and 0.2886.
incompressible flows. In order to show the performance of the model with unstructured
methods, the model is also implemented in an unstructured solver. The solutions of the
last two test cases are obtained with the unstructured solver. It is worth adding that the
tendency to use LES in more advanced applications requires LES solvers on unstructured
grids, where the RoSM model is especially suited because of its simplicity, requiring no
test filters, nor distance to the wall.
In order to compare the behavior of the RoSM, additional LES simulations with the
conventional dynamic Smagorinsky model (DSM) were run for each test case. The
models are compared to DNS and/or experimental data for mean velocity profiles,
velocity fluctuations, and turbulence intensities.
In addition, we also run LES simulation without a SGS model (no model). It should be
mentioned that comparison of the results from the SGS models with that of no model
shows the effect of the SGS models on the flow simulations. Hence, the contribution of a
subgrid-scale model to the observed LES simulation quality can be rather incremental,
and conclusions on subgrid-scale-model quality may be misleading.
It has been
walls. A fixed mean pressure gradient was used to drive the flow. For spatial
discretization, the second-order central finite volume scheme and for the temporal
discretization a low storage four-stage second order RK scheme was used.
The models were assessed and compared to DNS data of Moser et al. [106] on the basis
of mean profiles of velocity and turbulence intensities.
109
In Figure 6.3, the mean streamwise velocity profile (a) and the related absolute error
field (b) are shown. Apart from the present results, results with the dynamic Smagorinsky
model and a coarse DNS (no model) are also plotted for comparison. As can be seen,
the obtained mean streamwise velocity profile is in good agreement with DNS data and is
more accurate than the conventional dynamic Smagorinsky model.
The computed model coefficient with the present approach and with the dynamic
procedure is plotted in Figure 6.3(c). It can be seen that the RoSM model coefficient goes
to zero close to the wall without any damping function or dynamic procedure, enforcing
zero contribution from the subgrid scales in the viscous sublayer. The time averaged
model coefficient for the dynamic Smagorinsky model goes up to 0.0854, compared to
0.027 with the present approach.
Giving emphasis to the non-diagonal Reynolds stresses for assessment of LES in
incompressible flows (carried out here), we present the xy- component of the Reynolds
stress tensor obtained with the models in Figure 6.4. It is noted that the new approach
predicts the results better than does the dynamic Smagorinsky model throughout most of
the channel.
The conclusion drawn from the mean-velocity profile is also valid for the diagonal
Reynolds stresses. Since the models are traceless, we shall study only the deviatoric part
as suggested by Winckelmans et al. [107]. The deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stress (e.g.
streamwise) is computed as
uu
uu
1
uu vv ww
3
(6.21)
where the angle brackets refer to the average over homogeneous directions and time. The
corresponding Reynolds stress components in the streamwise, wall-normal and spanwise
directions and the absolute errors are presented in Figure 6.5. As can be seen, throughout
most of the channel the results of the RoSM model are better than those of the dynamic
Smagorinsky model.
110
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6.3, (a) The calculated mean streamwise velocity profile compared with the dynamic
Smagorinsky, and DNS. (b) The related absolute error field. (c) The model coefficient profiles.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.4, (a) The calculated xy-component of Reynolds stress tensor compared with the
dynamic Smagorinsky, no model LES and DNS. (b) The related absolute error field.
111
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 6.5, (Left) The calculated deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stresses compared with the
dynamic Smagorinsky model and DNS. (Right) The related absolute error field
112
dp / dx 4 0u2 / D .
Figure 6.6, Schematic of the duct geometry and the coordinate system is shown
The cells were equally distributed in x - direction and stretched in y - and z -directions.
The grid resolution close to the walls towards the centers was 0.23 y 11.00 , and the
streamwise distance x 30.46 , with 65 65 65 cells in respectively x-, y- and z 113
directions. The grid distributions in the y- and z- directions were identical. Periodic
boundary conditions were applied in the streamwise direction, and no-slip conditions at
the walls. For the initial condition, a parabolic streamwise velocity profile with random,
divergence-free velocity fluctuations was used.
A statistically stationary solution was obtained after 40 dimensionless time units and
thereafter turbulence statistics were obtained by performing the computations for another
40 dimensionless time units. The time was normalized with the friction velocity and the
duct height, i.e. 40 D / u . To assess the RoSM model, results are compared to the DNS
data of Gavrilakis [108] and LES results of Madabhushi and Vanka [109]
The computed mean streamwise velocity profiles of the RoSM model, the dynamic
Smagorinsky and no model along the wall bisector ( y 0.5D ) are plotted in wall
coordinates in Figure 6.7 and compared with DNS data. The mean velocity is
overpredicted, as is often the case with lower resolution LES. However, considerably
better (closer to DNS results) behavior of the RoSM model in comparison with dynamic
Smagorinsky is observed. Away from the wall this improvement is more pronounced,
the two models performing similarly near the wall.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.7, The calculated mean streamwise velocity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky
model, no model, and DNS.
114
The rms values of streamwise velocity fluctuations are plotted in Figure 6.8 (a).
Comparison shows a better behavior of the RoSM model throughout the duct. The RoSM
model overshoots the peak DNS value less than the dynamic Smagorinsky model and
shows significantly better agreement with the DNS data than the dynamic Smagorinsky
model elsewhere. In addition, the RoSM model results are in better agreement with DNS
data than the LES results of Madabhushi and Vanka [109].
The rms values of the y-component velocity fluctuations plotted in Figure 6.8 (b) indicate
that, in comparison with dynamic Smagorinsky, the RoSM model performs significantly
better from near the wall region up to the center region of the duct, and is in very good
agreement with the DNS results.
The rms values of the spanwise velocity fluctuations in Figure 6.8 (c) are consistently
better for the RoSM LES model. The agreement with the DNS data of Gavrilakis [108] is
good and much better than DSM and the LES results Madabhushi and Vanka [109].
In Figure 6.9 (a), the yz-component of the Reynolds stress tensor is depicted for the
RoSM model, the dynamic Smagorinsky model, and no model.
As readily seen,
throughout the duct, the results for the RoSM model and for the dynamic Smagorinsky model
are almost on top of each other. Near the wall and in the center region, LES results are close
to DNS for both models, whereas the models overestimate the results elsewhere.
Figure 6.9 (b) shows the profiles of the model parameter Cs for the RoSM model and the
dynamic Smagorinsky model. Near the wall the Cs profiles for both models are
comparable. In the region away from the wall, the Cs profiles behave quite differently
which is an important difference between the two models.
115
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 6.8, The calculated rms values of the diagonal Reynolds stresses compared with the
dynamic Smagorinsky, no model, LES of Madabhushi and Vanka and DNS
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.9, (a) the calculated xy-component of Reynolds stress tensor compared with the dynamic
Smagorinsky model, no model and DNS. (b) the model coefficient profiles.
116
D . This length is crucial for capturing the larger spanwise structures which have
wavelengths of the order of / D 1 according to Chyu and Rockwell [110]
An O-type grid was used which extended to 15 diameters in radial direction, as shown in
Figure 6.10. The grid consisted of 128 cells in the circumferential and radial direction and
48 cells in the spanwise direction. This is the same resolution as in the simulations of
Kravchenko et al. [111], Beaudan et al. [112] and Mittal et al. [113]. Also here the mesh
was stretched towards the wall to resolve the viscous sub-layer and towards the wake
zone. Uniform spacing of the mesh was used in the spanwise direction. The physical time
step of the simulation was t 3 105 s. The Mach number of the uniform flow in x direction was M 0.15 . For the simulation a streamwise velocity of U 0 50 m/s was
applied on the boundary.
117
The calculation was run until statistical convergence was obtained. In order to investigate
mean flow and turbulent intensities, statistics were compiled over a period of 35 vortex
shedding cycles by averaging in time and in the spanwise direction. The calculated results
from the RoSM model, the dynamic Smagorinsky model and a coarse DNS (no model)
are compared to DNS data of Ma et al. [114], experimental data of Lourenco and Shih
[115] and LES data of Kravchenko and Moin [111].
Figure 6.11 shows the calculated vertical profiles of the mean streamwise velocity at
streamwise locations x / D 1.06 , and x / D 1.54 . A good match of the present
streamwise velocity with DNS and experimental data is found. The present results are
also compared with those obtained from the dynamic Smagorinsky. The results are
almost on top of each other at the two locations. It can also be seen that using LES
without a SGS model underpredicts the results at the second location.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.11, The calculated mean streamwise velocity compared the dynamic Smagorinsky, no
model, LES data [111], DNS [114] and Experiments [115]. (a) x / D 1.06 , (b) x / D 1.54 .
Figure 6.12 shows the calculated vertical profile of the mean vertical velocity using the
RoSM model at the same downstream locations. The corresponding results from the
dynamic Smagorinsky are also plotted in this figure. At x / D 1.06 , the agreement with
the DNS results is also good, as can also be seen in Figure 6.12 (a), showing better
behavior of the RoSM approach in comparison with the dynamic Smagorinsky model.
118
Again, the results using the RoSM model are in good agreement with the DNS of Ma et
al. [114] at x / D 1.54 and match the results of the dynamic procedure quite well, as
shown in Figure 6.12(b). However, it should be mentioned that the anomalous behavior
seen in comparison to the experimental data of Lourenco and Shih [115] is mainly
attributed to the experimental disturbance as also reported by Kravchenko and Moin
[111], [116] and Meyer et al. [117].
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.12, The calculated mean vertical velocity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, no
model, LES data [111] DNS [114] and experiments [115]. (a) x / D 1.06 , (b) x / D 1.54 .
Figure 6.13 to Figure 6.15 show respectively the streamwise Reynolds stress, the
crosswise Reynolds stress and the Reynolds shear stress components from the simulation
and DNS at locations x / D 1.06 , and x / D 1.54 . All the Reynolds stress components
are normalized by the square of the inlet velocity.
For the streamwise Reynolds stress component u u /U 02 , prediction from both the
present model and the dynamic Smagorinsky model compared to DNS is illustrated in
Figure 6.13. As readily seen, agreement between the RoSM results and DNS is fairly
good at location x / D 1.06 . At this location, the uu profile presents two strong
peaks mainly due to the transitional state of the shear layers. The position of these two
peaks is in agreement with the experiment of Lourenco and Shih [115] but the
magnitudes of the peaks are underestimated for the present results. As shown in Figure
119
6.13 (a), an almost similar behavior is observed in LES with the dynamic Smagorinsky
model. Moreover, a good overall agreement, both in amplitude and shape, compared to
the DNS data of Ma et al. [114] is found for the two SGS models. The calculated results
at location x / D 1.54 are plotted in Figure 6.13 (b).
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.13, The calculated streamwise turbulent intensity compared with the dynamic
Smagorinsky model, no model, LES data [111], DNS [114] and experiments [115]. (a)
x / D 1.06 , (b) x / D 1.54 .
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.14, The calculated crosswise turbulent intensity compared with the dynamic
Smagorinsky model, no model, LES data [111], DNS [114] and experiments [115]. (a)
x / D 1.06 , (b) x / D 1.54
120
The position of the two peaks of the uu -profile agrees with the experiment of
Lourenco and Shih [115]. However, there is an underprediction in the magnitude of the
peaks at y 0.5 . Further, the peaks predicted by the present approach are closer to DNS
data, giving better agreement of the streamwise Reynolds stress component with the DNS
data in comparison with the dynamic approach.
In Figure 6.14, comparison of the cross-flow normal Reynolds stresses vv /U 02 is
shown for the above mentioned locations. It is found that near the cylinder the present
approach is closer to DNS results in the peak region (see Figure 6.14 (a)). Also in the
wake center region, the present results are in better agreement with DNS and
experimental data than DSM. Figure 6.14 (b) shows the same comparison for another
downstream location. The results for the RoSM model and the dynamic Smagorinsky are
almost on top of each other. As can be seen, a very good agreement, both in amplitude
and shape, compared to the DNS data of Ma et al. [114]is obtained for the two models.
In comparison with the experimental data of Lourenco and Shih [115] both models
overshoot the peak by the same amount.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.15, The calculated xy-component of the Reynolds stress tensor compared with the
dynamic Smagorinsky model, no model, LES data [111], DNS [114] and experiments [115]. (a)
x / D 1.06 , (b) x / D 1.54 .
121
In Figure 6.15, the calculated profile of the shear stress is presented at the same locations
as used in the previous plots. A strikingly good agreement with the DNS data of Ma et al.
[114] both in amplitude and shape, is obtained at these locations both for the RoSM
model and DSM.
Overall, the present method predicts the turbulent intensities better than the dynamic
Smagorinsky for the cylinder test case. For the vertical velocity profiles, the RoSM
approach and the dynamic Smagorinsky model show a similar behavior and both LES
results are in good agreement with the reference DNS data.
122
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
124
Also shown in Figure 6.17 is the comparison against the RANS simulation. As expected,
LES simulations are in much better agreement with the PIV results than compared to
RANS simulations. In case of RANS, the predicted velocity peaks illustrated in Figure
6.17 (b) and (c) overshoot the PIV experiment whereas, the peaks predicted from RoSM
and DSM are in good agreement. The same is reflected when comparing the two
component velocity magnitude contours at the sagittal plane (shown in Figure 6.18). It
can be seen that shape of the laryngeal jet originating at the glottis is numerically
reproduced by RoSM (c) and DSM (d), while in case of RANS (a) the origin of the jet is
well captured but the tail of the jet is much longer.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 6.18, Normalized time averaged 2 component velocity magnitude; (a) PIV, (b) RANS; (c)
RoSM; (d) DSM
Figure 6.19, shows the comparison of normalized two component ( u 'x2 and uz2 ' ) turbulent
kinetic energy. Similar to the observations made in Figure 6.17, the results from RoSM
and DSM are similar in nature and in good agreement with the PIV results.
125
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
'2
'2
Figure 6.19, Normalized two component ( ux and uz ) kinetic energy corresponding to central
sagittal plane, (a), (b), and (c) are one, two and three tracheal diameter downstream of larynx,
respectively; (d) five mm above epiglottis.
6.4 Conclusions
The RoSM model for estimation of the classical Smagorinsky model coefficient
developed at VUB was implemented and evaluated. We have shown that for the model
126
coefficient estimation, the proposed approach does not need any calibration to obtain the
best fit with the reference or the expensive dynamic approach, and the method finds itself
the right amount of dissipation.
The methodology was tested a posteriori using DNS data available from the literature for
a fully developed turbulent channel flow, a fully developed flow through a rectangular
duct of square cross section and a smooth subcritical flow past a stationary circular
cylinder. A good agreement between the RoSM model and the reference data was found.
Simulations have also been performed with the dynamic Smagorinsky model for each test
case. A good match between the RoSM model and the dynamic Smagorinsky results was
found. In comparison with the dynamic procedure, this improves the quality of the
results. It also has the following advantages,
The model coefficient is a self-adjusting flow dependent parameter.
It reduces the computational time with about 20%-25%.
It is very easy to implement for unstructured grids and complex geometries.
It does not need any stability control algorithm, avoiding all the numerical instability
issues that the dynamic procedure often faces.
These properties are very interesting for industrial applications, where the dynamic
procedure is very difficult to use and does not always provide accurate results.
127
128
Chapter 7
Particle deposition in extrathoracic
airway using LES
Contents
7.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................129
7.3 Multiple LES frozen field approach..................................................................................................132
7.3 Mathematical background.................................................................................................................132
7.3.1 Discrete POD method...................................................................................................................133
7.3.2 Procedure to derive optimal set of frozen-fields........................................................................136
7.4 Description of model geometry and sample data sets.....................................................................139
7.5 Results and discussion.......................................................................................................................140
7.5.1 Step 1, Evaluation of sampling period......................................................................................140
7.5.2 Step 2, Evaluation of time interval............................................................................................144
7.6 Particle deposition results.................................................................................................................147
7.6.1 Effect of SGS models...................................................................................................................148
7.6.2 Accounting SGS motions............................................................................................................150
7.6.3 Particle deposition comparision between RANS and LES......................................................154
7.7 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................156
7.1 Introduction
As was noted in Chapter 5, the particle deposition is highly sensitive to the accurate
prediction of transitional flow occurring in human airways. It was demonstrated that
using a different turbulence model results in a large variation in the calculated deposition
efficiencies. Furthermore, it was shown that RANS coupled with EIM overpredicts the
particle deposition data, particularly for smaller sized particles. This prompted to propose
correction functions to the EIM method (such as Wang and James EIM, helicity EIM
described in Chapter 4).
129
Due to the aforementioned problems, LES with an appropriate subgrid scale (SGS) model
is used to potentially improve the accuracy of particle deposition data (Jin et al. [17],
Jayaraju et al. [44], Lambert et al. [47]). In this approach, the LES particle simulations
involve a dynamic procedure wherein the flow and particle governing equations are
solved simultaneously. Although this approach gives a good agreement between the
particle deposition data and experiments it makes the computation very time consuming,
especially when several particle size diameters are involved.
To reduce the computational time involved with the above a second approach exists. In
this approach, first flow field data obtained from LES is stored at different instances of
time (called as frozen fields or snapshots). Then the particle calculation is carried out as a
post-operation procedure over stored frozen fields. Finally, the calculated particle
deposition data is represented as an ensemble average. This approach of calculating
particle deposition is known as multiple LES frozen field and reduces the particle
computation time by almost 70%. This chapter is concerned with the second approach
and gives a more methodical treatment discussed in the following sections.
Particle calculations can also be affected by accounting SGS model contribution,
depending on LES mesh and particle stokes number (Armenio et al. [119] and Berrouk
and Laurence [120]). Since the particle stokes number associated with particle deposition
in the human mouth throat is less than 0.1, in the present study of multiple LES frozen
field procedure, the effect of SGS models is included.
For the validation purposes, the results are compared against the available experimental
particle deposition data on the human respiratory tract (Verbanck et al. [45]).
131
Figure 7.1, Schematic of particle calculation procedure, a) dynamic approach, b) multiple LES
frozen field approach
The optimal set of LES frozen fields will be determined by first applying the discrete
proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) method of Sirovich [124] to the frozen field data
base. Then, adequate sample data set will be obtained by an approach similar to that used
by Hekmati et al. [125], where statistical means are used to conduct an indepth POD
mode convergence analysis. However, rather than conducting POD mode convergence,
first discrete POD is used to find characteristic eigenvalues and eigenmodes, to then
obtain an optimal set which captures most of the flow physics. In this investigation, the
final simulation of particle deposition data will be represented as an ensemble average
resulting from the optimal set of frozen fields.
used. The governing equations relating to RoSM and DSM are as described in Chapter 6
and Chapter 3, respectively.
The particle phase is solved by employing Lagrangian particle equation of motion as
described in chapter 3 rewritten as below
dup
dt
u up
(7.1)
For the similar reasoning as mentioned in Chapter 4, the gravity term is ignored in
equation (7.1)
(7.2)
133
(7.3)
where
1 S
U i
S i 1
(7.4)
Whether or not the mean is subtracted this does not changes the basic POD calculation
[126]. However, this changes the geometrical interpretation of the results (see [126]).
On can then define the covariance matrix C as follows,
CN N DD T
(7.5)
k 1,2,3, , S
(7.6)
134
k 1, 2,3, , S
(7.7)
where the S 1 vector Ak are the temporal coefficients. Using equation (7.7), one can
rewrite the eigenvalue equation (7.6) as follows
CDAk k DAk ,
k 1,2, 3, , S
(7.8)
DD DA
T
k DAk ,
k 1,2,3, , S
(7.9)
or
D DT DAk D k Ak ,
k 1,2,3, , S
(7.10)
One can remove the matrix D from both sides of equation (7.10) and obtain
D T DAk k Ak ,
k 1, 2, 3, , S
(7.11)
C S S D T D
(7.12)
A ,
CA
k
k k
k 1, 2,3, , S
(7.13)
where the vector Ak represent the coefficients of the eigenvector Vk in the basis of
snapshots (see equation (7.7)). Therefore, the original eigenvalue equation (7.6) is now
shifted to equation (7.13). First, the vector Ak is calculated from equation (7.13) and then
POD modes are obtained from equation (7.7).
135
In the method of snapshots, as shown by equations (7.12) and (7.13), the constructing the
new covariance matrix, C requires O S 2 N operations, which is much cheaper than the
(7.14)
where
T
u u1 u2 uN ,
T
v v1 v2 v N ,
(7.15)
w w1 w2 wN
An alternate way of interpreting POD is via Singular Value decomposition (SVD), infact
there is close relationship between POD and SVD. As detailed in [126], the Eigen values
and Eigen vectors could also be calculated using SVD and in such a case one doesnt
requires specification of the covariance matrix (for details please refer to [126]).
Because of the uncoupling of flow and particle simulation only one flow simulation is
needed irrespective of the number of particle sizes. In a coupled approach, coupled
simulations would be needed for all particle sizes. One way to reduce computational time
in a coupled approach is to run simultaneous LES-particle simulations in parallel, but this
requires large computational resource which in may not be available. This restriction can
be overcome by running only multiple particle simulations in parallel and each particle
simulation module is coupled to the single flow solver module. This infact requires the
change in existing solver softwares. Still conducting multiple LES approach is more
efficient, because in this case the one has to run LES flow simulation and then deduce the
optimal set using the steps described below only once. The optimal set can very well be
preserved for future times and can be used for particle simulation of any other particle set
as when requirement arises. This will not be the case with the coupled approach even
using aforementioned suggestions, since for any future requirement one again has to
compute LES-flow simulation.
The accuracy of the multiple LES frozen field methodology strongly depends on the
chosen sample set. This sample set should be an optimal set, capturing most of the flow
dynamics. The optimality of the set is based on two parameters, a) the time duration over
which the frozen fields should be generated i.e. the sampling period Ts and b) the time
interval between each frozen field ts .
In order to determine the optimal set, a reference data bank consisting of S frozen fields
is generated and stored in the matrix D as shown in equation (7.2). Each frozen field
contains instantaneous fluctuating velocities drawn at N mesh points. In the present study
the reference data bank D has S 221 frozen fields. The associated time interval at
which successive frozen fields are stored is taken to be tref 1e 3 , which is 100 fold
of the physical time step used in the LES simulation. After the reference data base is
generated, following two steps are performed,
Step 1, Various reduced sample sets are selected from the reference data bank and for
each set the Relative Information Content (RIC) quantity is defined as,
137
RIC
i 1
m
(7.16)
k 1
where symbol denotes the eigenvalue, m represents the total number of frozen fields
and q 1,2,3, , m . Mathematically, eigenvalues are unique to a particular set and hence
give a signature of that particular set. Physically, eigenvalues represent the relative
energy content of a particular sample set. The sample time period, Ts can then be
determined by the convergence behavior of respective RIC plots. Note that in this step of
the procedure, the evaluated Ts contains sample sets with a fixed time interval of tref .
The results for this step are presented in subsection 3.1.
Step 2, The evaluated Ts from step 1 is used to study the effect of increasing the time
interval ts . Now Ts is fixed and various reduced sample sets are assessed by
progressively increasing the time interval between frozen fields ts , which is greater than
tref . The effect of increasing the time interval can then be quantified by means of an
auto-correlation index. The auto-correlation index for the eigenmode Vk in a given
reduced sample set is defined as,
Vk ,ref Vk
Vk ,ref Vk ,ref
k 1, 2, 3, , S
(7.17)
Vk Vk
sample set. The optimal time interval is then chosen as the one leading to the maximum
correlation index. The results for this step are presented in subsection 3.2.
138
1.884e 5 Ns/m2, respectively. The particle density is set a p 912 kg/m3. In total,
about 10,000 randomly distribution particles are injected at the inlet of the UAM model.
A parabolic velocity profile is imposed at the inlet of UAM, whereas a zero gradient
velocity profile is imposed at the outlet.
For the analysis in step 1 and step 2, the RoSM is chosen as a SGS model. The physical
time step for LES computation is set to be 1e-5 which corresponds to a CFL of about 1.
Finally, the same parameters will be used to study the effect of SGS models and their
contributions on the particle deposition behavior.
139
Figure 7.2, UAM model geometry showing location of planes with one sagittal plane and five
perpendicular planes numbered 1-5
Tintegral , as the ratio of mean UAM length L to the average cross-sectional velocity at the
inlet U in,ave . Here, L 0.326 m and U in,ave 4.97 m/sec, and then Tintegral 0.06 sec.
Considering increasing sampling period Ts , Table 1 details the sample sets analyzed,
where the first column denotes various sample sets or test cases, the second column
denotes the number of frozen-fields contained in respective sample sets, and the last
column represents the length over which samples are collected given in terms of the ratio
between Ts and Tintegral
140
Sample Sets
Ts Tintegral
set 1
set 2
set 3
set 4
set 5
set 6
set 7
set 8
set 9
set 10
set 11
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
Table 7.1, Sample sets parameters with ts tref
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
(a)
(b)
Figure 7.3, Relative Information Content (RIC) for various sample sets detailed in Table 7.1;
considering (a) Case 1 Sagittal plane; (b) Case 2 Sagittal and five perpendicular planes (see
Figure 7.2)
Figure 7.3 shows the relative information content (RIC) curve for each sample set
detailed in Table 1. As mentioned before in section 7.5.1 (step 1), an RIC curve provides
the information regarding the accumulated energy contained in respective sample sets.
Since this curve shows the energy with respect to a given sample set, it can be used to
study the effect of increasing or decreasing sampling period. It can be observed for a
given ts the increase in the number of frozen-fields/snapshots (i.e. increase of Ts ),
141
approaching the maximum available set 11, the difference in RIC curve (energy) for
various sample sets progressively decreases. This observation is hardly affected by the
addition of five additional planes to the sagittal plane, as can be seen from the similarity
between Figure 7.3 (a) and Figure 7.3 (b).
One can also use the RIC curves in Figure 7.3 to determine the number of POD modes
required to represents a certain percentage of the total information content for any given
sample set, which was considered to be 95% in our study. When doing this for each
95%
95%
/ S(11)
sample set, and normalizing this to the reference set 11, the resulting S 95% S(11)
95%
95%
S 95% S(11)
/ S(11)
95%
95%
S 95% S(11)
/ S(11)
Case 1
0.9
0.81
0.71
0.61
0.52
0.43
0.34
0.26
0.15
0.09
Table 7.2, Sample sets deviation from the reference set 11
Case 2
0.9
0.81
0.71
0.63
0.54
0.46
0.36
0.27
0.14
0.09
As can be seen from Table 7.2, the relative deviation (i.e., loss of energy content with
respect to set 11) in set 10 or set 9 remains below 15%. However, if the sampling period
is decreased to less than 4 Tintegral i.e. set 1 to 7 the deviation becomes larger than 25%.
This observation is hardly affected by the addition of the five perpendicular planes to the
sagittal plane, as can be seen from the similarity between both columns of Table 7.2.
142
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 7.4, Contours and profiles of average velocity magnitude at sagittal plane for selected sets
of Table 1, (a) velocity magnitude contour; (b), (c) and (d) are the velocity profiles at section 1-1
In order to ascertain that set 9 does represent an adequate set, the averaged velocity
magnitude contours and their profiles at the sagittal plane are compared with the solution
from full LES (Figure 7.4). The averaging for full LES was carried out for more than 15
flow through cycles.
As can be observed in Figure 7.4 (a), the shape of the glottal jet is equally well captured
by set 11 and set 9, whereas in set 2 and set 1, the glottal jet is more dissipative as
compared with the full LES. Also, the non-dimensional averaged velocity magnitude
143
profiles around the glottal jet (Figure 7.4 (b), (c), and (d)) show that set 11 and set 9
correspond better to the full LES results than do set 2 and set1. Overall, the above
analysis and flow field assessment suggest that set 9 having a period of Ts 4.5Tintegral
does represent an adequate choice, at least in terms of sample period.
Ts / Tintegral
181
4.5
91
4.5
46
4.5
22
4.5
12
4.5
6
4.5
Table 7.3, Sample sets parameters with Ts 4.5Tintegral
ts / tref
1
2
4
8
16
32
Figure 7.5 illustrates, for Case 1 and Case 2, three chequered plots describing the
correlation index of the first 6 scalar POD modes related to x-, y-, and z- velocity
components of the reduced sample sets (set II to VI). The correlation index indicates how
the sets II-VI are correlated with respect to the reference set I, from which following
observations can be made,
The behavior of the correlation index is comparable for all the three velocity components.
As expected, with smaller ts the correlation of the first and second mode, which correspond to the first two large eigenvalues, is bigger for set II as compared to any other
set.
144
Sample sets IV, V, and VI give a poor correlation index for all the 6 POD modes
shown, implying that the deviation in terms of retaining flow field with respect to the
reference set I is higher.
Irrespective to the choice of location of the planes, Case 1(top) and Case 2(bottom),
reveals the same information.
Overall, the flow field information retained with respect to the reference set I is better
retained in reduced sample sets II and III.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 7.5, Auto correlation index; (a, d) x-velocity, (b, e) y-velocity, (c, f) z-velocity
respectively; (top) Case 1, (bottom) Case 2
The contours and the profile of the average velocity magnitude at the sagittal plane are
illustrated in Figure 7.6. Sample sets IV to VI retain much less flow field information as
145
can be seen in the dissipation of the glottal jet shown in Figure 7.6(a). In fact, set VI has
the highest dissipation and thus the lowest correlation index (see Figure 7.5). The
dissipation of the glottal jet is the least for set II followed by set III as was reflected in
their respective correlation index.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 7.6, Contours and profiles of average Velocity Magnitude at sagittal plane for sets detailed
in table 3, (a) Velocity Magnitude Contour; (b), (c) and (d) are the Velocity profiles at section 11, 2-2 and 3-3 respectively.
Also, the velocity profiles in Figure 7.6(b)-(d) essentially reflect the same message.
Based on the analysis of this subsection, it can be concluded that rather than using all 181
frozen fields, 91 or even 46 frozen fields can be used. Overall, from the analysis
presented across subsections 7.5.1 and 7.5.2, it can be inferred that doing POD analysis is
not only intuitive but also beneficial. It can characterize the random data stored in the
146
sample sets and determine an optimal set which captures most of the flow-dynamics. In
the following section, the optimal set for the evaluation of particle deposition will be
used.
147
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7.7, Particle deposition efficiencies for set I, II and III; (a)Total Deposition
efficiency, (b)-(c) Relative deposition efficiency for 3m and 6m
agreement to the experiments. We will now compare the performance of two SGS models
in terms of the particle deposition. The sampling period Ts and the time interval ts
between frozen fields were kept the same for both the SGS models. A sampling period of
4.5Tintegral and a time interval of ts 2tref (i.e. S 91 ; Table 3) were considered. Figure
7.8 shows the calculated total deposition efficiency (Figure 7.8 (a)) and the relative
deposition efficiencies for 3m and 6m (Figure 7.8 (b) and (c)). It can be seen that both
SGS models predict almost similar values for the particle deposition efficiency.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7.8, Particle deposition efficiencies comparison ; (a) Total Deposition efficiency, (b)-(c)
Relative deposition efficiency for 3m and 6m
149
This similarity is also reflected when comparing the averaged flow field of the above
used sample set between two SGS models (see Figure 7.9).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 7.9, Contours and profiles of average Velocity Magnitude at sagittal plane, (a) Velocity
Magnitude Contour; (b), (c) and (d) are the Velocity profiles at section 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3
respectively
u u u'
(7.18)
where u represents resolved velocity vector and u' represents subgrid part. In LES, the
SGS velocity information is not readily available and thus requires modeling. Therefore,
mostly in past studies in equation (7.1) it is assumed that u u . However, in some of the
literature, it has been shown that for particles with Stokes number smaller than 1; it is
worthwhile to account for the SGS contribution as this may lead to different particle
deposition characteristics. There are several ways of accounting the SGS contribution in
equation (7.18) (Fukagata et al. [127], Shotorban & Mashayek [128], Berrouk and
Laurence [120]). On dimensional grounds, subgrid kinetic energy can be modeled as,
sgs
t
L
(7.19)
(7.20)
where c is the SGS model constant, evaluated based on the SGS model considered and
is the grid size. Finally, the SGS velocity contribution is modeled assuming an
isotropic condition for the SGS part. The SGS velocity components in x, y and z
directions are defined as follows,
u ' N1
2 sgs
k ,
3
v' N2
2 sgs
k ,
3
w' N3
2 sgs
k
3
(7.21)
where N i represents Gaussian random number with zero mean and unity standard
deviation. This approach of modeling SGS velocities is the same as used by Wang and
151
databank. Also the root mean square is based on this data set. It is clear from the figures
that the subgrid scale kinetic energy are very small compared to the k res . This fact is
also reflected in the particle deposition results. However, further in depth investigation is
required to quantitatively access the effect of SGS fluctuations, which is beyond the
scope of current work, but will be the purpose of future work.
152
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
153
Figure 7.10, Particle deposition efficiencies comparison ; (a)-(b)Total Deposition efficiency, (c)(d) Relative deposition efficiency for 3m, (e)-(f) Relative deposition efficiency for 6m
(a)
Figure 7.11, Comparison of
(b)
(c)
ksgs
(averraged SGS kinetic energy) and k rms (kinetic energy contained in the fluctuation),
corresponding to reference data set;
square fluctuation
relative deposition values. Overall for it can be inferred that when there is a
computational resource restriction, RANS coupled HEIM can be assumed to give
comparable results with experiments. If there is no such restriction it is preferable to use
more accurate LES approach utilizing the systematic approach described in this chapter
which will further help in reduce computational time.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7.12, Comparison of particle deposition between RANS and LES at inspiratory flow rate
of 60 l/min; (a) total deposition efficiency, (b)-(c) relative deposition efficiency corresponding to
3m and 6 m
155
7.7 Conclusion
This chapter described a systematic multiple LES frozen field approach that resulted in a
time-efficient yet accurate simulation of particle transport. We tested the approach using
UAM as our test case and considering inspiratory flow rate at 60 l/min. Two SGS models
namely, RoSM and DSM validated in the previous chapter were utilized.
The main idea of the approach was to use several LES frozen fields, stored at different
instances of time and then numerically simulate particle tracking as a post operation step.
This avoids the coupling of LES-particle calculations thereby saving considerable
computational time.
First, a methodical procedure was introduced for determining an optimal set which could
then be used in the multiple LES frozen field approach. The procedure is a two-step
process and involves first generating a data bank containing instantaneous velocities
drawn on the spatial domain of interest. The optimal set was then derived from the flow
field data bank by systematically analyzing eigenvalues and eigenmodes evaluated
through discrete POD methodology. The success of the procedure was demonstrated by
comparing the flow field data contained in the optimal set with the full LES results and
also by comparing the particle calculations with the available experimental data. A good
overall agreement between the results was observed.
In the second part of the work, the effect of subgrid scale models was investigated. It was
noticed that the two SGS models predict similar particle calculations. It was observed that
the effect of accounting SGS motion in particle calculation is negligible. Finally, a
comparison of particle results obtained from LES and RANS was shown. Clearly, as
observed in previous chapter, the accuracy of using LES was also reflected in particle
deposition results. It is concluded that when there is a computational resource restriction,
RANS coupled HEIM can be assumed to give comparable results with experiments. If
there is no such restriction it is preferable to use more accurate LES approach utilizing
156
the systematic approach described in this chapter which will further help in reduce
computational time.
157
158
Chapter 8
Particle deposition in a 5 Generation
intrathoracic airway using LES
Contents
8.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................159
8.2 Upper airway geometry.......................................................................................................................160
8.3 Simulation condition............................................................................................................................161
8.4 Results...................................................................................................................................................163
8.4.1 Mesh convergence study...............................................................................................................163
8.4.2 Flow dynamics...............................................................................................................................165
8.4.3 Optimal set determination...........................................................................................................168
8.4.4 Particle deposition results.............................................................................................................171
8.1 Introduction
In order to completely evaluate the drug dose or the toxicity of particulate matter, it is
vital that CFD studies should include fluid/particle simulation in a complete lung model.
Having evaluated the fluid/particle methodologies in previous chapters, this chapter
presents the next logical step which is application of those outcomes to a more complete
airway model. Furthermore, this chapter presents briefly the fluid/particle simulation
results in an upper airway geometry consisting of airways till 5th generation (shown in
Figure 8.1). The success and the accuracy of the multiple LES snapshot methodology
introduced in the previous chapter are, therefore, chosen as the preferred methodology for
this chapter.
159
right side, this is made of right upper lobe (RUL), right middle lobe (RML) and right
lower lobe (RLL). In general, for an upper airway consisting of n generations has 2n
outlets. In the present case, we have n 5 accordingly, 32 airways. Moreover, we have
one extra outlet at LLL. This extra airway is not any superficially added airway but was
observed in the CT-scan and therefore was kept as such. All the outlets of the airways are
extended by 10 times their diameters. This is done to avoid reverse flow and therefore to
have smooth flow exit. The total fluid volume of the air way model is 102.1 liters.
Figure 8.1, Upper airway geometry reconstructed by fusing scaled UAM model with CT-scan
data of a female adult.
The entire geometry is discretized into tetrahedral cells consisting of 2.1, 4.2 and 8.4
million cells. In order to ensure the quality of the resolution in the boundary layer , quad
cells with a stretching ratio of 1.1 are used.
condition that exits during experiments. All the outlets of the current airway geometry are
imposed with uniform zero gauge pressure. This is because in the experiments, all the
outlets are connected to a single pump. Also in order to have same conditions during the
particle experiments and to have a nearly parabolic velocity profile at the inlet, a long
tube at the inlet of airway cast is used. In order to ascertain with the current imposed
boundary condition, mass fractions going in to each outlet is the same as that of
experiments. Figure 8.6 illustrates measured mass flow rates at each outlet during flow
experiments compared to that obtained with simulation. Clearly, a good correlation can
be observed between experiments and simulations which in turn give confidence with
regards to the choice of the boundary conditions. For the fluid phase, air at density
analysis is carried for the velocity field stored at the central sagittal plane (shown in
Figure 8.6). The results of the POD analysis are given in the sections below.
Due to the non-availability of particle experiments in the upper airway, at the moment for
the comparison purposes, we consider the work of Lambert et al. [47], where a similar
particle deposition study by imposing a steady parabolic velocity corresponding to 20
l/min is carried out. Further the particle deposition results are also considered with the
experiments of Chan and Lipmann [130] and Zhou and Cheng [131].
Figure 8.2, Sagittal plane with section planes used for mesh convergence study
Figure 8.3 illustrates the comparison of u uin at different section shown in Figure 8.2.
163
sec-a
sec-b
sec-c
sec-d
sec-e
sec-f
164
The plotted results represent the solution averaged for 10 through cycles. Apart from
section a and d, the profile for u uin in 4.2 million cells or 8.4 million cells looks
similar. The differences seen in the plots for 4.2 and 8.4 million cells could be attributed
to insufficient averaging. During the LES calculation it was observed that the velocity
profiles in 4.2 million cells and 8.4 million cells get closer from 5 through cycles to 10
through cycles. Overall looking at the velocity profiles in section a till f, it can be
deduced that 4.2 million can be further used for the rest of the calculations.
(a)
(b)
Figure 8.4, Contours of mean velocity magnitude (a) and mean turbulent kinetic energy (b)
Before going into the details of the particle deposition results it is worthwhile to briefly
discuss about the computed flow field. The following LES flow results are based on the
165
converged mesh of 4.2 million tetrahedral cells. The flow results presented in this section
are obtained after averaging over 15 integral time scales. The integral time scale is
defined as the ratio of Din / U in where the inlet diameter Din 14mm and U in 2.5 m/s.
Figure 8.4 (a) shows the contours of the mean velocity magnitude and the turbulent
kinetic energy. As observed, the mean flow velocity increases as it passes through the
narrow passage of the mouth. The Laryngeal jet surrounding the glottis (Figure 8.5 (a)) is
formed as a result of acceleration of air caused due to the sudden constriction at the
glottis. Interestingly, the jet is directed more towards the left side (right side in the
picture) as can be seen from the stream lines.
(a)
(b)
Figure 8.5, Contours of mean velocity magnitude and turbulent kinetic energy at central plane
The turbulent kinetic energy contours (Figure8.5 (b)) show that the flow, after initially
being turbulent, laminarizes further down in the trachea.
166
Figure 8.6, Comparison of flow distribution at outlets against experimentally measured data at 30
l/min
The CFD predicted flow rate (shown as circles) distribution at the various lobes is
illustrated in Figure 8.6 and compared against the experimentally measured (shown as
triangles) flow rates. As observed, an overall good correlation can be found between the
experiments and the CFD predicted flow. Comparison of the CFD versus experiments
obtained from Lambert et al. [47] and Darquenne et al. [132] is also shown. The present
data infact lies in between the data obtained with former authors, thereby giving
confidence in the simulated results. Moreover, an interesting observation can also be
made, as mentioned before in the present case we use uniform pressure at all outlets,
where as in the case of Lambert et al. [47] and Darquenne et al. [132] at outlet mass flow
was imposed based on the subtended volmes. In the case of Darquenne et al. [132] it was
based on the data provided by Horsefield et al. [6], while Lambert et al. [47] derived flow
distribution from CT-scan. This do suggests that using uniform pressure at outlets or
imposing flow does not make any huge differences.
Table 8.1 details the flow rate distribution among all the five lobes (CFD and
experiments). It can be noticed that LLL receives greater portion of the inspired air than
167
any other lobe, whereas the RML receives the least. In total the right lung receives
slightly more air than compared to left lung.
Lobes
Q (l/min)- CFD
Q (l/min)- Exp.
Q(l/min)-CFD
Q(l/min)-Exp.
LUL
4.856
4.831
14.057 (left)
14.287 (left)
LLL
9.201
9.447
RUL
5.011
5.180
15.943 (right)
15.722 (right)
RML
2.487
2.724
RLL
8.445
7.817
Table 8.1, Flow rate (l/min) distribution in lobes, CFD versus Experiments
These observations are very much similar to what Lambert et al. [47] observed in their
recent studies.
k 1
various reduced sets. The red line corresponds to q=1041 and the blue line corresponds to the
reference data base of q=1201
168
Figure 8.7 illustrates the RIC curve for various reduced sets derived from the reference
data set consisting of 1201 snapshots. In this figure, there are 29 sets, stating from a set
consisting of 41 snapshots leading to reference data set (shown in blue, rightmost in the
figure). As the number of chosen frozen-fields/snapshots increases (i.e. increase of Ts ) the
difference in the RIC curve (energy) for various sample sets progressively decreases.
Similar to the analysis done in Chapter 7, the ratio N q95% / N q95%
1201 is plotted in Figure 8.8,
where N q95% denotes the number of POD modes required to represent 95% of the total
information in a given sample set. The abscissa represents various sample sets plotted in
decreasing order i.e. starting from set q 1201 to set q 49 . As can be observed, by
decreasing sample sets (and hence decreasing sampling period Ts ) the slope of the curve
for the first few sets ( q 1201 to 1001 ) changes slowly, while for the later sample sets it
starts changing dramatically. Based on the on the above analysis of Figure 8.7 and Figure
8.8, we have considered a sample period Ts 0.05s represented by the sample set
q=1041 (shown in red curve in Figure 8.7) as the adequate set for further analysis.
The next step in the analysis is to determine the required time interval between each
snapshot ( ts ). This is carried out by the following the POD procedure: wherein Ts is
now fixed and various reduced sample sets are accessed by progressively increasing ts .
169
This is done by calculating the autocorrelation index k (see Chapter 7, equation 7.16 for
the definition). Figure 8.9 illustrates the calculated autocorrelation index for the first 9
POD modes for samples sets II to VII. The sample sets II to VII were derived by
doubling ts . As can be observed, there is a very good correlation among the first 9 POD
modes till set VI, after which the correlation is only seen for the first POD mode. Based
on Figure 8.9, we chose set IV which consists of 66 snapshots having Ts 0.05s and ts
=0.0008s as the set to be used for particle calculation.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 8.9, Auto correlation index; (a) x-velocity, (b) y-velocity, (c) z-velocity
170
p d p2U m
Stk
18d m
U m d m
Re
(8.1)
In the above equation , and p are the fluid phase and particle density, respectively, d m
is the mean hydraulic diameter, U m is the mean velocity and is the dynamic viscosity
of the fluid phase. The terms d m and U m are defined as,
V
L
Q
Um
LV
dm 2
(8.2)
In the present case, L=0.185, V=4.73 ml corresponding to the oral cavity. As can be
observed the present oral deposition correlates well with the Grgic curve. On the other
hand, there is a slight overprediction at the lower end of Stk * Re0.37 range for the case of
171
Lambert et al. [47]. When comparing the present particle calculation with that of Lambert
et al. [47], the x-axis is not the same for a given particle size. This is mainly because of
the difference in flow rates and airway dimensions used. Overall, the oral deposition
correlates well for the present case and that of Lambert et al. [47].
172
To explore the local deposition behavior, Figure 8.12 presents a qualitative comparison
between the present results with those obtained in experiments reported in literature. The
experimental data of Zhou and Cheng [131] are obtained for a four-generation airway
replica made from an adult cadaver. Their airway replica included an oral cavity,
pharynx, larynx, trachea, and four generations of the bronchi. In addition, the results are
also compared with those of Chan and Lippmann [130], who studied particle deposition
173
in a hollow cast of the human larynx-tracheobronchial tree from the first to the sixth
generations. The generational deposition efficiency plotted is defined as the ratio of the
number of deposited particles divided by the number of particles that entered the airway
branch. In the present case, generation G1 is composed of trachea as the parent branch
and the left and the right main bronchus as the daughter branches (see Figure 8.1).
Regardless of the variability seen among the plotted deposition data, the dependence of
deposition on Stokes number shows similar trends. The Stokes number for generation
deposition efficiency is defined as in equation (8.1), but in this case U m is the mean flow
in the parent branch and d m is the average diameter of the parent branch.
IV Lobar based particle distribution
(a)
(b)
In Figure 8.13, the y-axis represents the particle entering in: i) generation 5 (represented
by square symbol), ii) all fives lobes (represented as circles), and iii) the lungs i.e. the left
and the right lung (represented by triangles). This is compared with the respective flow
distribution, plotted on the x-axis. In both cases, either for 2 m or 10 m, the particles
received are in accordance with the flow distribution, e.g. in the right middle lobe (RML)
174
receives almost 8.2% of the total flow (calculated from Table 8.1) and the percentage of
particles received in the RML is around 8.1% of the particles. Similarly, according to
Table 8.1, the left lung (47%) receives less flow than does the right lung (53%), the same
is also reflected in particle distribution. This observation of particle distribution in
proportion to the flow distribution is observed both for a small and a larger particle size
(as can be seen from Figure 8.13 (a) and (b)). In fact, the results for the smaller particle
size lie almost on the 1:1 ratio line (dashed line). For the larger particle size there is more
scatter, which can be attributed to inertia (since 10 m have higher inertia than compared
to 2 m) possibly combined with a gravitational effect since at the lower airways
deposition due to sedimentation becomes important. One way to check this is to compare
with a simulation where gravity is ignored. This was not further investigated however
because of lack of time.
The observation made in Figure 8.13 (also reported by Darquenne et al. [132]) is in
contrast to the observation of Lambert et al. [47]. According to Lambert et al. [47], even
though the left receives less air flow than the right lung, more particles enter the left lung
as compared to the right lung.
8.5 Conclusions
The present chapter presented the application and the success of multiple LES frozen
field approach (described in Chapter 7) in evaluating particle deposition in a CT-scan
based 5 generation intrathoracic airway for a steady inspiratory flow rate of 30 l/min. The
airway model is generated by merging the earlier simplified UAM representing
extrathoracic region with a CT-scan of an adult female cadaver. The particle deposition
results were compared with the LES results of Lambert et al. [47] and experimental
results of [130] and [131].
It was observed that imposing uniform pressure at the outlets results in a good agreement
of flow distribution with experiments. It was also noted that the left lung receives less
175
flow than does the right lung in consistent with the observation made during experiments
and in the works of Lambert et al. [47] and Darquenne et al. [132].
In terms of particle deposition, an overall good agreement can be seen in the oral region
with the present result being closer to the Grgic curve and comparable with Lambert et al.
[47]. Also, a comparable agreement at least in qualitative terms can be observed for total
and generational deposition. However, it is to be mentioned that the compared geometries
were not geometrically identical and therefore dedicated experiments at 30 l/min is
required which at the moment is not available. This will allow for a more quantitative
validation of the current simulations.
An important observation made, in contrast to Lambert et al. [47] but in agreement with
Darquenne et al. [132], that the particle distribution is in proportion with flow
distribution. This was especially true for smaller particle sizes, where the data falls on the
identity line representing 1:1 ratio. However, there is scatter in deposition data for bigger
sized particles although they still distribute in proportion to flow distribution. This could
either be attributed to the inertia (since bigger sized particle have higher inertia than
compared to smaller sized particle). Or a combination of inertial and gravitational effect
since at lower airways deposition due to sedimentation becomes important. One way to
check this is to compare the present data with a simulation where gravity is ignored. But
this is the scope for future work.
176
Chapter 9
Conclusion and Future work
Contents
9.1RANS......................................................................................................................................................177
9.2 LES........................................................................................................................................................178
9.3 Future work..........................................................................................................................................179
9.3.1 Boundary condition.......................................................................................................................179
9.3.3 Moving larynx..............................................................................................................................181
9.3.4 Uncertainity quantification.........................................................................................................181
9.1 RANS
Fluid flow and particle simulation in a CT-scan based simplified upper airway model
representing extra-thoracic region were investigated. Inhalation flow rates of 30 l/min and
60 l/min were considered with particle diameters ranging from 2m-10m. Within the
frame work of RANS when using classical EIM, it was observed that numerical particle
data were largely overpredicted in consistent with the observations made in previous
studies on a similar geometry. For respirable range (1m-5m) at 30 l/min, we observe
an overprediction of almost 30% in total deposition efficiency and also inaccurate local
deposition behavior when compared against available experimental data. This deficiency
177
was mainly attributed to the isotropic assumption involved in classical EIM. This
prompted us to propose a new EIM model referred to as helicity EIM (Chapter 4). The
new anisotropic EIM has the advantage over existing Wang and James EIM that it does
not require any priori estimation of y+ and accounts the flow anisotropy directly from the
computed flow field. The method was tested on a 900 bend pipe and against the available
experimental data in UAM. The particle results were in relatively good agreement over
the entire particle range considered. However, some deviations still existed especially at
higher flow rates of 60 l/min (Chapter 5). Several numerical experiments were carried out
in Chapter 5 and the effect of inlet velocity profiles and the effect of additional tubing
during the experiments were assessed. It was shown that helicity EIM based particle
deposition is highly sensitive to inlet velocity profile and in particular to the computed
flow field. It was seen that in the event of non-availability of inlet velocity profile,
parabolic velocity profile mimicked closely the observations made in experiments
9.2 LES
The need for accurate flow simulation is recognized in past studies and was also shown in
Chapter 5. The fact that inaccuracies exists in predicting transitional flow in human
airways when using RANS prompted studies involving LES and DNS methodologies.
However, so far fewer studies involving LES have been conducted, mainly because of
computational cost which is several times higher than that of RANS. In the framework of
eddy viscosity based SGS models for LES, the complete model is the DSM. Models such
as constant Smagorinsky and WALE are not complete in the sense that one needs to
supply the value for constant appearing in the formulation. However, the major
deficiency in DSM is the evaluation of model constant which is not straightforward in
complex unstructured geometries like human airways. Therefore, the recently developed
RoSM SGS model was implemented and verified. The model was posteriori tested on
several test cases before applying on UAM geometry. It was shown that the performance
of this model was similar to DSM and in some cases better but the main advantage is that
it is 25% faster than compared to DSM. This is important saving since one still has to
178
conduct particle calculations. However, when several particle ranges are being
considered, conducting LES/particles simulation is still computationally time consuming.
Therefore, we carried forward the idea proposed by Matida et al. [46] and Jayaraju et al.
[44] of using frozen-field approach for particle simulation. But the above authors still
experienced some deterioratory particle data, infact Jayaraju et al. [44] observed that
RANS coupled with EIM resulted in better results than frozen-field approach. This was
mainly attributed to using only one LES frozen-field. Therefore, there was a need for
using several such frozenfields for which there was no systematic procedure in
estimating number of such field required. In Chapter 7, based on a POD analysis of
frozen fields, a systematic procedure was introduced and tested in UAM, the results were
in good agreement with the available experimental data. This way the computational time
was reduced by 50%. This offers a great advantage especially when several particle sizes
need to be considered. Finally, owing to the success gained in Chapter 7, the multiple
LES frozen-field approach was applied to upper airway geometry consisting of extrathoracic region and tracheobronchial region upto 5th generation (Chapter 8). The
simulated particle results were shown to be at par with the available literature considered.
(9.1)
VT w
2
f
w
(Ti / Ttot )
Q0
(9.2)
where VT is the tidal volume, f is the breathing frequency, Ti is the time duration of
single, and Ttot is the time duration of single breadth. One can also use realistic inlet
waveforms such as mentioned in [134].
180
Figure 9.1, Lobar particle deposition versus lobar flow distribution at 60 l/min, preliminary
experimental results.
182
List of Publications
Journal Articles
1) V. Agnihotri, G. Ghorbaniasl, S. Verbanck and C. Lacor. An eddy interaction model
for particle deposition. Journal of Aerosol Science. pp. 39-47, 2012
2) V. Agnihotri, G. Ghorbaniasl, S. Verbanck and C. Lacor. On the multiple LES
frozen field approach for the prediction of particle deposition in the human upper
respiratory tract. Journal of Aerosol Science.pp. 58-72, 2014
3) G. Ghorbaniasl, V. Agnihotri and C. Lacor, "A self-adjusting flow dependent
formulation for the classical Smagorinsky model coefficient," Physics of Fluids, vol. 25,
2013
4) S. Verbanck, H. Kalsi, M. Biddiscombe, V. Agnihotri, B. Belkassem, C. Lacor and O.
Usmani, "Inspiratory and expiratory aerosol deposition in the upper airway," Inhalation
Toxicology, vol. 23, p. 104111, 2011.
Conference and proceedings
1) V. Agnihotri, G. Ghorbaniasl, S. Verbanck, C. Lacor. Performance of helicity eddy
interaction model for simulation of Aerosol deposition Patterns in a Simplified Human
Upper Airway Model, VI European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics
ECOOMAS CFD 2012, Vienna,Austria.
2) V.Agnihotri, G.Ghorbaniasl, S.Verbanck, C.Lacor . Numerical Study of Aerosol
deposition in a Simplified Human Mouth-Throat Model. National Congress on
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (2012), Royal Military Academy, Belgium.
183
184
Bibliography
[1]
I. P. 66, "Annals Of the ICRP, 24, Nos 1-3," Pergamon/Elsevier, Tarrytown, NY,
1994.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
M. Tawhai, A. Pullan and P. Hunter, "Generation of an anatomically based threedimensional model of the conducting airways," Annals of Biomedical Engineering,
vol. 28, p. 793802, 2000.
[11] C. van Ertbruggen, C. Hirsch and M. Paiva, "Anatomically based threedimensional model of airways to simulate flow and particle transport using
computational," Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 98, p. 970980, 2005.
[12] P. Nithiarasu, O. Hassan, K. Morgan, N. P. Weatherill, C. Fielder, H. Whittet, P.
Ebden and K. R. Lewis, "Steady flow through a realistic human upper airway
geometry," Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, vol. 57, p. 631651, 2008.
[13] I. Katz and T. Martonen, "Flow patterns in three-dimensional laryngeal model,"
Journal of Aerosol Medicine, Vols. 9-4, p. 501511, 1996.
[14] T. Corcoran and N. Chigier, "Characterization of the laryngeal jet using phase
doppler interferometery," Journal of Aerosol Medicine, vol. 13, p. 125137, 2000.
[15] C. Kleinstreuer and Z. Zhang, "Laminar-to-turbulent fluid-particle flows in a
human airway model," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol. 29, p. 271
289, 2003a.
[16] A. Farkas, I. Balashazy and K. Szocs, "Characterization of regional and local
deposition of inhaled aerosol drugs in the respiratory systemby computational fluid
and particle dynamics methods," Journal of Aerosol Medicine, vol. 19, p. 329343,
2006.
[17] H. Jin, J. Fan, M. Zeng and K. Cen, "Large eddy simulation of inhaled particle
deposition within the human upper respiratory tract," Journal of Aerosol Science,
vol. 38, p. 257268, 2007.
[18] J. Xi and P. Longest, "Transport and deposition of micro-aerosols in realistic and
simplified models of the oral airway," Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 35,
p. 560581, 2007.
186
[19] Y. Cheng, Y. Zhou and B. Chen, "Particle deposition in a cast of human oral
airways," Aerosol Science and Technology, vol. 31, p. 286300, 1999.
[20] K. Stapleton, E. Guentsch, M. Hoskinson and W. Finlay, "On the suitability of k-
turbulence modeling for aerosol deposition in the mouth and throat: A comparison
with experiment," Journal of Aerosol Science, vol. 31, p. 739749, 2000.
[21] W. DeHaan and W. Finlay, "In vitro monodisperse aerosol deposition in a mouth
and throat with six different inhalation devices," Journal of Aerosol Medicine, vol.
14, p. 361367, 2001.
[22] B. Grgic, W. Finlay and A. Heenan, "Regional aerosol deposition and flow
measurements in an idealized mouth and throat," Journal of Aerosol Science, vol.
35, pp. 21-32, 2004.
[23] M. Brouns, S. Jayaraju, C. Lacor, J. Mey, M. Noppen, W. Vincken and S.
Verbanck, "Tracheal stenosis: A flow dynamics study," Journal of Applied
Physiology, vol. 102, p. 11781184, 2007.
[24] N. Nowak, P. P. Kakade and A. V. Annapragada, "Computational fluid dynamics
simulation of airflow and aerosol deposition in human lungs," Annals of
Biomedical Engineering, vol. 31, pp. 373-390, 2003.
[25] H. Shi, C. Kleinstreuer and Z. Zhang, "Nanoparticle transport and depostion in
bifurcating tubes with different inlet conditions," Physics of Fluids, vol. 16, pp.
2199-2213, 2004.
[26] Z. Zhang and C. Kleinstreuer, "Airflow structures and nano-particle deposition in a
human upper airway model," Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 198, pp. 178210, 2004.
187
[27] P. Longest and S. Vinchurkar, "Effects of mesh style and grid convergence on
particle deposition in bifurcating airway models with comparisons to experimental
data," Medical Engineering and Physics, vol. 29, pp. 350-366, 2007.
[28] T. Vasconcelos, B. Sapoval, J. Andrade, J. Grotberg, Y. Hu and M. Filoche,
"Particle capture into the lung made simple," J Appl Physiol, vol. 110, p. 1664
1673, 2011.
[29] L. Holbrook and P. Longest, "Validating CFD predictions of highly localized
aerosol deposition in airway models: In vitro data and effects of surface
properties," Journal of Aerosol Science, vol. 59, pp. 6-21, 2013.
[30] C. Lin, M. H. Tawhai, G. McLennanc and E. Hoffmanc, "Characteristics of the
turbulent laryngeal jet and its effect on airflow in the human intra-thoracic
airways," Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology, vol. 157, p. 295309, 2007.
[31] B. Ma and K. Lutchen, "An Anatomically Based Hybrid Computational Model of
the Human Lung and its Application to Low Frequency Oscillatory Mechanics,"
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 34, p. 16911704, 2006.
[32] P. Ghalati, E. Keshavarzian, O. Abouali, A. Faramarzi, J. Tu and A. Shakibafard,
"Numerical analysis of micro-and nano-particle deposition in a realistic human
upper airway," Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 42, pp. 39-49, 2012.
[33] W. Hofmann, R. Golser and I. Balashazy, "Inspiratory deposition efficiency of
ultrafine particles in a human airway bifurcation model," Aerosol Science and
Technology, vol. 37, p. 988994, 2003.
[34] J. Comer, C. Kleinstreuer and Z. Zhang, "Flow structures and particle deposition
patterns in double-bifurcation airway models. Part 1. Air flow fields," Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, vol. 435, p. 2554, 2001.
188
190
[52] J. Pozorski and J. Minier, "The pdf method for lagrangian two-phase flow
simulations," Gas Particle Flows, 1995.
[53] P. Hutchinson, G. Hewitt and A. Dukler, "Deposition of liquid or solid dispersions
from turbulent gas streams: a stochastic model," Chemical Engineering Science,
vol. 26, p. 419439, 1971.
[54] A. Gosman and E. Ioannides, "Aspects of computer simulation of liquid-fuelled
combustor," AIAA Journal, pp. 81-0323, 1981.
[55] M. Sommerfeld, A. Ando and D. Wennerberg, "Swirling, particle-laden flows
through a pipe expansion," ASME: Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 114, p. 648
656, 1992.
[56] D. Graham and P. James, "Turbulent dispersion of particles using eddy interaction
models," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vols. 22-1, pp. 157-175, 1996.
[57] D. Graham, "On the inertia effect in eddy interaction models," International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vols. 22-1, p. 177184, 1996.
[58] D. Graham, "Improved eddy interaction models with random length and time
scales," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vols. 24-2, p. 335345, 1998.
[59] D. Graham, "Spectral characteristics of eddy interaction models," International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol. 27, p. 10651077, 2001.
[60] Z. Zhang, C. Kleinstreuer and C. Kim, "Micro-particle transport and deposition in a
human oral airwaymodel," Journal of Aerosol Science, vol. 33, p. 16351652,
2002.
[61] Y. Wang and P. James, "On the effect of anisotropy on the turbulent dispersion and
deposition of small particles," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol. 25, p.
191
551558, 1999.
[62] J. Sandeau, I. Katz, R. Fodil, B. Louis, G. Apiou-Sbirlea, G. Caillibotte and D.
Isabey, "CFD simulation of particle deposition in a reconstructed human oral
extrathoracic airway for air and heliumoxygen mixtures," Journal of Aerosol
Science, vol. 41, p. 281294, 2010.
[63] K. Inthavong, T. Jiyuan, Y. Yong, S. Ding, S. Aleks and F. Thien, "Effects of
airway obstruction induced by asthma attack on particle deposition," Journal of
Aerosol Science, 2010.
[64] Y. Zhang, W. Finlay and E. Matida, "Particle deposition measurements and
numerical simulation in a highly idealized mouththroat," Aerosol Science, vol. 35,
pp. 789-803, 2004.
[65] V. Agnihotri, G. Ghader, S. Verbanck and C. Lacor, "On the multiple LES frozen
field approach for the prediction of particle deposition in the human upper
respiratory tract," Journal of Aerosol Science, vol. 68, pp. 58-72, 2014.
[66] H. Tennekes and J. L. Lumley, A first course in turbulence, MIT press, 1972.
[67] O. Reynolds, "An experimental investigation of the circumstances whcih
determnine whetehr the motion of water shall be direct or sinous and of the lea of
resistance in parallel channels," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, vol. 172, pp. 935-982, 1883.
[68] B. Baldwin and H. Lomax, "Thin-Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for
Separated Turbulent Flows," aiaa, pp. 78-257, 1978.
[69] F. Menter, "Two equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications," AIAA Journal, Vols. 32-8, p. 15981605, 1994.
192
[70] F. Menter, J. Ferreira, T. Esch and B. Konno, "The SST Turbulence Model with
ImprovedWall Treatment for Heat Transfer Predictions in Gas Turbines," in
Proceedings of the International Gas Turbine Congress, Tokyo, 2003.
[71] A. Leonard, "Energy cascade in les of turbulent fluid flows," Advances in
Geophysics, vol. 18, p. 237248, 1974.
[72] J. Deardorff, "A numerical study of three-dimensional turbulent channel flow at
large Reynolds number," J.Fluid Mech, vol. 41, pp. 453-480, 1970.
[73] P. Saugut, Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows, Springer, 1998.
[74] J. Smagorinsky, "General circulation experiments with the primitive equation,"
Monthly Weather Report, Vols. 91-3, p. 99106, 1963.
[75] D. Lilly, "The representation of small-scale trubulence in numerical simulation
experiments," in IBM Scientific Computing Symp. on Environmental Sciences,
Yorktown Heights, 1967.
[76] M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin and W. Cabot, "A dynamic subgridscale eddy
viscosity model," Physics of Fluids, vol. 3, p. 1760, 1991.
[77] L. Fan and C. Zhu, Principles of Gas-Solid Flows, Cambridge Unievrsity Press,
1998.
[78] S. Elghobashi, "On Predicting Particle-Laden Turbulent Flows," Applied Scientific
Research, Netherlands, 1994.
[79] C. Kleiunstreuer, Z. Zhang and Z. Li, "Modeling airflow and particle
transport/deposition
in
pulmonary
airways,"
193
Respiratory
Physiology
ans
194
[88] J. Kim, P. Moin and R. Moser, "Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel
Flow at low Reynolds number," Journal of Fluid Mech, vol. 177, pp. 133-166,
1987.
[89] N. Mansour, J. Kim and P. Moin, "Reynolds-stress and dissipation rate budgets in a
turbulent channel flow," Journal of Fluid Mech, vol. 194, pp. 15-44, 1988.
[90] D. Pui, F. Romay-Novas and B. Liu, "Experimental study of particle deposition in
bends with circular cross section," Aerosol Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3,
pp. 301-315, 1987.
[91] S. Jayaraju, Study of the Air Flow and Aerosol Transport in the Human Upper
airway using LES and DES Methodologies, Brussels: VUB press, 2009.
[92] Z. Zhang, C. Kleinstreuer, J. Donohue and C. Kim, "Comparison of micro- and
nano-size particle depositions in a human upper airway model," Journal of Aerosol
Science, vol. 36, pp. 211-233, 2005.
[93] J. Xi and P. Longest, "Transport and deposition of micro-aerosols in realistic and
simplified models of the oral airway," Annals of biomedical engineering, vol. 35,
no. 4, pp. 560-581, 2007.
[94] P. Longest and J. Xi, "Computational investigation of particle inertia effects on
submicron aerosol deposition in the respiratory tract," Journal of Aerosol Science,
vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 111-130, 2007.
[95] R. Robinson, P. Snyder and M. Oldham, "Comparison of particle tracking
algorithms in commercial CFD packages: sedimentation and diffusion," Inhalation
Toxicology, vol. 19, p. 517531, 2007.
[96] P. Longest and S. Vinchurkar, "Inertial deposition of aerosols in bifurcating models
during steady expiratory flow," Jounal of Aerosol Science, vol. 40, pp. 370-378,
195
2009.
[97] G. Ghorbaniasl, V. Agnihotri and C. Lacor, "A self-adjusting flow dependent
formulation for the classical Smagorinsky model coefficient," Physics of Fluids,
vol. 25, 2013.
[98] M. Brouns, Numerical and Experimnetal study of Flow and deposition of Aerosols
in the Upper Human Airwways, Brussels: VUB press, 2007.
[99] C. V. Ertbruggen, Study of aerosol transport and deposition in the lungs using
Compuational fluid dynamics, Brussels: ULB press, 2005.
[100] M. Breuer, H. Baytekin and E. Matida, "Prediction of aerosol deposition in 90
degree bends using LES and an efficient Lagrangian tracking method," Journal of
Aerosol Sci., vol. 37, p. 14071428, 2006.
[101] B. Grgic, W. Finlay, P. Burnell and A. Heenan, "In vitro intersubject and
intrasubject deposition measurements in realistic mouththroat geometries,"
Journal of Aerosol Science, vol. 35, p. 10251040, (2004).
[102] P. Longest and S. Vinchurkar, "Effects of mesh style and grid convergence on
particle deposition in bifurcating airway models with comparisons to experimental
data," Medical engineering & physics, vol. 29, pp. 350-366, 2007.
[103] J. Bardina, J. Ferziger and W. Reynolds, "Improved subgrid scale models for LES,"
AIAA, p. 801357, 1980.
[104] Y. Y. Zang, R. Street and J. Koseff, "A dynamic mixed subgrid-scale model,"
Physics of Fluids A, vol. 5, p. 31863196, 1993.
[105] J. Meyers and P. Sagaut, "Is plane-channel flow a friendly case for the testing of
large-eddy simulation subgrid-scale," Phys. Fluids, vol. 19, 2007.
196
1993.
[116] P. Parnaudeau, J. Carlie, D. Heitz and E. Lamball, "Experimental and numerical
studies of the flow over a circular at Reynolds number 3900," Phys. Fluids, vol. 20,
pp. 1-14, 2008.
[117] M. Meyer, S. Hickel and N. Adams, "Assessment of implicit large-eddy simulation
with a conservative immersed interface method for turbulent cylinder flow," Int. J.
Heat Fluid Flow, vol. 31, pp. 368-377, 2010.
[118] J. Choi, G. Xia, M. Tawhai, E. Hoffman and C. Ling, "Numerical study of highfrequency oscillatory air flow and convective mixing in a CT based human airway
model," Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 38, no. 12, p. 35503571, 2010.
[119] V. Armenio and V. Fiorotto, "The importance of forces acting on particles in
turbulent flows," Phys. Fluids, vol. 13, pp. 2437-2440, 2001.
[120] A. Berrouk and D. Laurence, "Stochastic modelling of aerosol deposition for LES
of 90 degree bend turbulent flow," Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow, vol. 29, pp. 1010-1028,
2008.
[121] M. Breuer, G. Durmus, E. Matida and W. Finlay, "LES and an efficient Lagrangian
tracking method for predicting aerosol deposition in turbulent flows," in Fifth
international symposium on turbulence, heat and mass transfer, Dubrovnik,
Croatia, 2006.
[122] J. Derksen, "Separation Performance Predictions of a Stairmand High-Efficiency
Cyclone," Fluid Mechanics and transport phenomena, vol. 49, 2003.
[123] J. Derksen, "Long-time solids suspension simulations by means of large-eddy
approach," Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 84, p. 3846, 2006.
198
[124] L. Sirovich, "Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures, parts I-III,"
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 65, pp. 561-590, 1987.
[125] A. Hekmati, D. Ricot and P. Druault, "About the convergence of POD and EPOD
modes computed from CFD simulation," Computer and Fluids, vol. 50, pp. 60-71,
2011.
[126] L. Cordier and M. Bergmann, "Proper orthogonal decomposition: An Overview,"
von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Brussels, 2003.
[127] K. Fukagata, S. Zahrai and F. Bark, "Dynamics of Brownian particles in a turbulent
channel flow," Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 40, pp. 715-726, 2004.
[128] B. Shotorban and F. Mashayek, "Modeling subgrid-scale effects on particles by
approximate deconvolution," Phys. Fluids, vol. 17, 2005.
[129] Q. Wang and K. Squires, "Large eddy simulation of particle-laden turbulent
channel flow," Phys. Fluids, vol. 8, pp. 1207-1223, 1996.
[130] T. Chan and M. Lippmann, "Experimental Measurements and Empirical Modeling
of the Regional Deposition of Inhaled Particles in Humans," Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc,
vol. 41, p. 399409, 1980.
[131] Y. Zhou and Y. Cheng, "Particle Deposition in a Cast of Human Tracheobronchial
Airways," Aerosol Sci. Technol, vol. 39, p. 492500, 2005.
[132] C. Darquenne, v. Ertbruggen and G. K. Prisk, "Convective flow dominates aerosol
delivery to the lung segments," J. Appl. Phsyiol., vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 48-54, 2011.
[133] L. Vecellioa, P. Kippax, S. Rouquette and P. Diot, "Influence of realistic airflow
rate on aerosol generation by nebulizers," International Journal of Pharmaceutics,
vol. 371, pp. 99-105, 2009.
199
200