CFD Simulations AC7-01: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 30: Line 30:
|-
|-
|align="center" width=650|'''Figure 10:''' Computational domain viewed from different angles.
|align="center" width=650|'''Figure 10:''' Computational domain viewed from different angles.
|}  
|}
 
 
The digital model of the physical geometry was used to generate a proper computational mesh
in order to perform the simulations. For the LES simulations, three meshes
were generated to allow us to examine the sensitivity of the results on the mesh resolution.
The coarser mesh includes 10 million computational cells, the intermediate one 30
million cells and the finer approximately 50 million cells. In these meshes, the near-wall
region was resolved with prismatic elements, while the core of the domain was meshed
with tetrahedral elements. Cross-sectional Views of these meshes at seven stations are
shown in figure 11. A grid convergence analysis was carried out in order to determine the
appropriate resolution for the LES simulations. This analysis is presented in section 3.2.4.
 
Table 5 reports grid characteristics, such as the height of the wall—adjacent cells
<math>{\Delta r_{min}}</math>, the number of prism layers near the walls, the average expansion ratio of the
prism layers (A)7 the total number of computational cells7 the average cell volume (V) and
the average and maximum 34+ values. The higher 34+ values (above 1) are found near the
glottis constriction and the bifurcation carinas7 which are characterised by high wall shear
stresses.
<br/>
<br/>
----
----

Revision as of 09:59, 4 October 2019

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

Aerosol deposition in the human upper airways

Application Challenge AC7-01   © copyright ERCOFTAC 2019

CFD Simulations

Overview of CFD Simulations

LES and RANS simulations were carried out in the benchmark geometry. The details of these numerical tests and their predicted deposition are given in the following paragraphs. In summary, the main differences in LES and RANS simulations are:

  1. Computational meshes
  2. Turbulence modeling
  3. Different outlet boundary conditions
  4. In RANS simulations a turbulent dispersion model was used to account for the effect of turbulence on particle transport.

Large Eddy Simulations

Computational domain and meshes

The geometry used in the calculations is the same as the one used in the experiments developed by the group in Brno University of Technology (BUT). The computational domain, shown in Figure 10, has one inlet and ten different outlets, for which appropriate boundary conditions must be specified in the simulations.


AC7-01 fig10.png
Figure 10: Computational domain viewed from different angles.


The digital model of the physical geometry was used to generate a proper computational mesh in order to perform the simulations. For the LES simulations, three meshes were generated to allow us to examine the sensitivity of the results on the mesh resolution. The coarser mesh includes 10 million computational cells, the intermediate one 30 million cells and the finer approximately 50 million cells. In these meshes, the near-wall region was resolved with prismatic elements, while the core of the domain was meshed with tetrahedral elements. Cross-sectional Views of these meshes at seven stations are shown in figure 11. A grid convergence analysis was carried out in order to determine the appropriate resolution for the LES simulations. This analysis is presented in section 3.2.4.

Table 5 reports grid characteristics, such as the height of the wall—adjacent cells , the number of prism layers near the walls, the average expansion ratio of the prism layers (A)7 the total number of computational cells7 the average cell volume (V) and the average and maximum 34+ values. The higher 34+ values (above 1) are found near the glottis constriction and the bifurcation carinas7 which are characterised by high wall shear stresses.



Contributed by: *** — ***

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2019