Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs
Collection and deposition of particles in the upper airway and lungs is of considerable importance – for example, when studying chronic diseases, or when determining the efficacy of aerosol drug delivery. Modelling of particle deposition usually assumes either constant flow (typically at maximum ins...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Conference Paper |
| Published: |
Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/46498 |
| _version_ | 1848757575210762240 |
|---|---|
| author | King, Andrew Mullins, Benjamin Mead-Hunter, Ryan |
| author2 | PA Brandner |
| author_facet | PA Brandner King, Andrew Mullins, Benjamin Mead-Hunter, Ryan |
| author_sort | King, Andrew |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Collection and deposition of particles in the upper airway and lungs is of considerable importance – for example, when studying chronic diseases, or when determining the efficacy of aerosol drug delivery. Modelling of particle deposition usually assumes either constant flow (typically at maximum inspiration), or oscillating flow – ignoring any effects of the lung’s motion. This paper presents a preliminary examination of the effects of ignoring mesh motion when modelling the lungs. Initially, an idealised lung model was created, corresponding to generations 0 to 3 of Weibel’s morphology[14]. Simulations were then made using this geometry for steady flow, oscillating flow, and flow developed by expanding the lung. The expansion of the lung was modelled using a mesh motion library developed by the authors. This model allowed the expansion of the lung to be prescribed. Results from the simulations show significant differences between the three modelling options – relating to both the predicted flow field, and particle deposition sites. Robustness of the moving mesh modelling technique is demonstrated on a high-resolution geometry created from CT scans of a Sprague-Dawley rat model lung. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T09:30:16Z |
| format | Conference Paper |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-46498 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T09:30:16Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publisher | Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-464982023-02-07T08:01:22Z Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs King, Andrew Mullins, Benjamin Mead-Hunter, Ryan PA Brandner BW Pearce Aerosols Breathing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Lungs Collection and deposition of particles in the upper airway and lungs is of considerable importance – for example, when studying chronic diseases, or when determining the efficacy of aerosol drug delivery. Modelling of particle deposition usually assumes either constant flow (typically at maximum inspiration), or oscillating flow – ignoring any effects of the lung’s motion. This paper presents a preliminary examination of the effects of ignoring mesh motion when modelling the lungs. Initially, an idealised lung model was created, corresponding to generations 0 to 3 of Weibel’s morphology[14]. Simulations were then made using this geometry for steady flow, oscillating flow, and flow developed by expanding the lung. The expansion of the lung was modelled using a mesh motion library developed by the authors. This model allowed the expansion of the lung to be prescribed. Results from the simulations show significant differences between the three modelling options – relating to both the predicted flow field, and particle deposition sites. Robustness of the moving mesh modelling technique is demonstrated on a high-resolution geometry created from CT scans of a Sprague-Dawley rat model lung. 2012 Conference Paper http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/46498 Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society fulltext |
| spellingShingle | Aerosols Breathing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Lungs King, Andrew Mullins, Benjamin Mead-Hunter, Ryan Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| title | Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| title_full | Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| title_short | Comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| title_sort | comparison of breathing models for determining flow and particle deposition in the lungs |
| topic | Aerosols Breathing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Lungs |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/46498 |