Evaluation AC7-01: Difference between revisions
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Comparison of Test Data and CFD== | ==Comparison of Test Data and CFD== | ||
[[Evaluation_AC7-01#figure20|Figure 20]] shows the comparison between LES, RANS and ''in vitro'' deposition results. | [[Evaluation_AC7-01#figure20|Figure 20]] shows the comparison between LES, RANS and ''in vitro'' deposition results. | ||
The error bars attached to the ''in vitro'' results at 60 L/min (figure 20(d)) correspond to | The error bars attached to the ''in vitro'' results at 60 L/min | ||
the estimated experimental uncertainties as reported by the authors (Lizal ''et al.'', 2015). | ([[Evaluation_AC7-01#figure20|figure 20(d)]]) correspond to | ||
the estimated experimental uncertainties as reported by the authors | |||
([[Best_Practice_Advice_AC7-01#lizal2015|Lizal ''et al.'', 2015]]). | |||
Overall deposition in the geometry as predicted with LES and RANS is in good agreement | Overall deposition in the geometry as predicted with LES and RANS is in good agreement | ||
with the measured data (see figure 20(a)). Concerning deposition in the segments of the | with the measured data (see [[Evaluation_AC7-01#figure20|figure 20(a)]]). | ||
Concerning deposition in the segments of the | |||
geometry, numerical and experimental results are shown to be in reasonable agreement at | geometry, numerical and experimental results are shown to be in reasonable agreement at | ||
15 and 60 L/min, whereas deviations are found at 30 L/min. Possible reasons for the observed | 15 and 60 L/min, whereas deviations are found at 30 L/min. Possible reasons for the observed | ||
| Line 19: | Line 22: | ||
velocity profiles and uniform particle distribution assumed in the CFD simulations due | velocity profiles and uniform particle distribution assumed in the CFD simulations due | ||
to the effect of the devices located upstream of the mouth in the experimental apparatus | to the effect of the devices located upstream of the mouth in the experimental apparatus | ||
(Lizal ''et al.'', 2015). | ([[Best_Practice_Advice_AC7-01#lizal2015|Lizal ''et al.'', 2015]]). | ||
| Line 25: | Line 28: | ||
{|align="center" border=0 | {|align="center" border=0 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20a.png| | |align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20a.png|650px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20b.png| | |align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20b.png|650px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20c.png| | |align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20c.png|650px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20d.png| | |align="center"|[[Image:AC7-01_fig20d.png|650px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|align="center" width= | |align="center" width=650|'''Figure 20:''' Comparison of deposition between LES, RANS and ''in vitro'' data. | ||
|} | |} | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
{{ACContribs | {{ACContribs | ||
|authors= | |authors=P. Koullapis<sup>a</sup>, F. Lizal<sup>b</sup>, J. Jedelsky<sup>b</sup>, L. Nicolaou<sup>c</sup>, K. Bauer<sup>d</sup>, O. Sgrott<sup>e</sup>, M. Jicha<sup>b</sup>, M. Sommerfeld<sup>e</sup>, S. C. Kassinos<sup>a</sup> | ||
|organisation= | |organisation=<br><sup>a</sup>Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus<br><sup>b</sup>Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic<br><sup>c</sup>Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA<br><sup>d</sup>Institute of Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany<br><sup>e</sup>Institute Process Engineering, Otto von Guericke University, Halle (Saale), Germany | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ACHeader | {{ACHeader | ||
Latest revision as of 08:41, 21 October 2019
Aerosol deposition in the human upper airways
Application Challenge AC7-01 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2019
Evaluation
Comparison of Test Data and CFD
Figure 20 shows the comparison between LES, RANS and in vitro deposition results. The error bars attached to the in vitro results at 60 L/min (figure 20(d)) correspond to the estimated experimental uncertainties as reported by the authors (Lizal et al., 2015). Overall deposition in the geometry as predicted with LES and RANS is in good agreement with the measured data (see figure 20(a)). Concerning deposition in the segments of the geometry, numerical and experimental results are shown to be in reasonable agreement at 15 and 60 L/min, whereas deviations are found at 30 L/min. Possible reasons for the observed discrepancies include experimental uncertainties at the inlet related to the velocity profile and the particle distribution. The in vitm inlet conditions might deviate from the velocity profiles and uniform particle distribution assumed in the CFD simulations due to the effect of the devices located upstream of the mouth in the experimental apparatus (Lizal et al., 2015).
|
|
|
|
| Figure 20: Comparison of deposition between LES, RANS and in vitro data. |
Contributed by: P. Koullapisa, F. Lizalb, J. Jedelskyb, L. Nicolaouc, K. Bauerd, O. Sgrotte, M. Jichab, M. Sommerfelde, S. C. Kassinosa —
aDepartment of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
bFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic
cDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
dInstitute of Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany
eInstitute Process Engineering, Otto von Guericke University, Halle (Saale), Germany
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2019