The results show the potential of the large eddy simulation as a high-quality comparative case to check the suitability of a chosen Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes setup and turbulence model. Furthermore, the results lead to suggest that large eddy simulations are superior to unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations when instantaneous stresses are applied for the blood damage prediction.

Adverse events due to flow-induced blood damage remain a serious problem for blood pumps as cardiac support systems. The numerical prediction of blood damage via computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a helpful tool for the design and optimization of reliable pumps. Blood damage prediction models primarily are based on the acting shear stresses, which are calculated by solving the Navier–Stokes equations on computational grids. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the influence of the spatial discretization and the associated discretization error on the shear stress calculation in a blood pump in comparison to other important flow quantities like the pressure head of the pump. Therefore, CFD analysis using seven unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) simulations was performed. Two simple stress calculation indicators were applied to estimate the influence of the discretization on the results using an approach to calculate numerical uncertainties, which indicates discretization errors. For the finest grid with 19 × 106 elements, numerical uncertainties up to 20% for shear stresses were determined, while the pressure heads show smaller uncertainties with a maximum of 4.8%. No grid-independent solution for velocity gradient-dependent variables could be obtained on a grid size that is comparable to mesh sizes in state-of-the-art blood pump studies. It can be concluded that the grid size has a major influence on the shear stress calculation, and therefore, the potential blood damage prediction, and that the quantification of this error should always be taken into account.

The use of implantable pumps for cardiac support (Ventricular Assist Devices) has proven to be a promising option for the treatment of advanced heart failure. Avoiding blood damage and achieving high efficiencies represent two main challenges in the optimization process. To improve VADs, it is important to understand the turbulent flow field in depth in order to minimize losses and blood damage. The application of the Large-eddy simulation (LES) is an appropriate approach to simulate the flow field because turbulent structures and flow patterns, which are connected to losses and blood damage, are directly resolved. The focus of this paper is the comparison between an LES and an Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes simulation (URANS) because the latter one is the most frequently used approach for simulating the flow in VADs. Integral quantities like pressure head and efficiency are in a good agreement between both methods. Additionally, the mean velocity fields show similar tendencies. However, LES and URANS show different results for the turbulent kinetic energy. Deviations of several tens of percent can be also observed for a blood damage parameter, which depend on velocity gradients. Possible reasons for the deviations will be investigated in future works.