2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2017.08.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical investigation of turbulent airflow and microparticle deposition in a realistic model of human upper airway using LES

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
3
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fig 8 shows good agreement between the simulation performed by the present code (Alya) and the numerical results of [47, 49, 63]. Differences in deposition results are due to the coarser airway surfaces in the replica producing higher deposition efficiencies than the numerical model, already observed frequently in literature, see [64, 65] who provide an extended study which can be summarized as the “wall roughness region enhanced particle capturing effect” or other study [66] who compared deposition of different level of surface roughness replicas (see Fig 8 Model A,B,C) from [61] with LES simulations.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Fig 8 shows good agreement between the simulation performed by the present code (Alya) and the numerical results of [47, 49, 63]. Differences in deposition results are due to the coarser airway surfaces in the replica producing higher deposition efficiencies than the numerical model, already observed frequently in literature, see [64, 65] who provide an extended study which can be summarized as the “wall roughness region enhanced particle capturing effect” or other study [66] who compared deposition of different level of surface roughness replicas (see Fig 8 Model A,B,C) from [61] with LES simulations.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 75%
“…The corresponding run-time for a RANS simulation was ∼ 12 hours; for an LES computation, it was 4–5 days. Note that for the LES work, the simulated flow interval was 0.5 second for the 30 L/min case, with 0.0002 second as the time-step 37 and it was 0.25 second for the 55 and 85 L/min flow rates with the time-step at 0.0001 second. In the computations, assumed air density was 1.204 kg/m 3 and 1.825×10 − 5 kg/m.s was used as dynamic viscosity of air.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 shows good agreement between the simulation performed by the present code (Alya) and the numerical results of ( Schroeter et al, 2011 , Shang et al, 2015 , Shi et al, 2007 ). Differences in deposition results are due to the coarser airway surfaces in the replica producing higher deposition efficiencies than the numerical model, already observed frequently in literature, see Bahmanzadeh, Abouali, Faramarzi, and Ahmadi (2015) and Shi et al (2007) who provide an extended study which can be summarized as the “wall roughness region enhanced particle capturing effect” or other study ( Ghahramani, Abouali, Emdad, & Ahmadi, 2017 ) who compared deposition of different level of surface roughness replicas (see Fig. 11 Model A,B,C) from Kelly, Asgharian, Kimbell, and Wong (2004) with LES simulations.…”
Section: Governing Equationsmentioning
confidence: 94%