Evaluation AC7-01: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=Evaluation= | =Evaluation= | ||
==Comparison of Test Data and CFD== | ==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). | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 13:05, 8 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).
Contributed by: *** — ***
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2019