0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Fluids/Heat/Transport

The Effects of Different Mesh Generation Methods on Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis and Power Loss Assessment in Total Cavopulmonary Connection

[+] Author and Article Information
Yutong Liu, Kerem Pekkan, S. Casey Jones, Ajit P. Yoganathan

Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA

J Biomech Eng 126(5), 594-603 (Nov 23, 2004) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1800553 History: Received January 30, 2004; Revised April 15, 2004; Online November 23, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematic shows the reconstructed circulation after an extra-cardiac total cavopulmonary connection surgery. The dashed box highlights the region of interest. LPA denotes the left pulmonary artery. PV denotes the flow of oxygenated blood in to the right and left atrium through the pulmonary veins.
Grahic Jump Location
TCPC model with physiological IVC diameter, SVC diameter, and curved PA
Grahic Jump Location
Structured mesh for the TCPC model. Only the connection region and LPA are shown. The grid blocks of the LPA are decomposed and some cells are removed for better visualization.
Grahic Jump Location
Unstructured mesh for the TCPC model. Only the connection region and LPA are shown. Some cells in the LPA are removed for better visualization.
Grahic Jump Location
Correlation plot used to determine outlet pressure boundary conditions in the structured models
Grahic Jump Location
Energy loss calculated with three methods (simplified control volume, control volume, and energy dissipation) and CPU time as a function of the number of cells in structured models
Grahic Jump Location
Energy loss calculated with three methods (simplified control volume, control volume, and energy dissipation) and CPU time as a function of the number of cells in the unstructured models
Grahic Jump Location
Streamtraces on the (a) the vertical central plane and LPA cross section; and (b) the horizontal central plane. The arrows indicate the view direction.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of flow fields on the vertical plane in the structured (left panel) and unstructured (right panel) models at the flow split condition of (a) LPA 30%:RPA 70%; (b) LPA 50%:RPA 50%; (c) LPA 70%:RPA 30%
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of flow fields of the horizontal plane in structured (upper panel) and unstructured (lower panel) models at the flow split condition of: (a) LPA 30%:RPA 70%, in which (1) shows streamtraces in the vertical plane through the core of the small recirculation, and (2) through the core of the large recirculation (b) LPA 50%:RPA 50%; (c) LPA 70%:RPA 30%
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of the secondary flow at the cross section two PA diameters from SVC centerline in structured (left panel) and unstructured (right panel) models at the flow split condition of (a) LPA 30%:RPA 70%; (b) LPA 50%:RPA 50%; (c) LPA 70%:RPA 30%
Grahic Jump Location
Energy loss assessment by different calculation methods plotted against the different LPA flow split conditions in the (a) structured model and (b) unstructured model
Grahic Jump Location
Energy loss assessment in different models plotted against the different LPA flow split conditions by (a) simplified control volume method, (b) control volume method, and (c) velocity gradient based viscous dissipation analysis

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In