0
Research Papers

Computational Analysis of Microbubble Flows in Bifurcating Airways: Role of Gravity, Inertia, and Surface Tension

[+] Author and Article Information
Xiaodong Chen, Rachel Zielinski

Department of Biomedical Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43210

Samir N. Ghadiali

Department of Biomedical Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43210
Department of Internal Medicine,
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and
Sleep Medicine,
Dorothy M. Davis Heart &
Lung Research Institute,
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43210
e-mail: ghadiali.1@osu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received October 10, 2013; final manuscript received July 20, 2014; accepted manuscript posted July 30, 2014; published online August 12, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Alison Marsden.

J Biomech Eng 136(10), 101007 (Aug 12, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1478; doi: 10.1115/1.4028097 History: Received October 10, 2013; Revised July 20, 2014; Accepted July 30, 2014

Although mechanical ventilation is a life-saving therapy for patients with severe lung disorders, the microbubble flows generated during ventilation generate hydrodynamic stresses, including pressure and shear stress gradients, which damage the pulmonary epithelium. In this study, we used computational fluid dynamics to investigate how gravity, inertia, and surface tension influence both microbubble flow patterns in bifurcating airways and the magnitude/distribution of hydrodynamic stresses on the airway wall. Direct interface tracking and finite element techniques were used to simulate bubble propagation in a two-dimensional (2D) liquid-filled bifurcating airway. Computational solutions of the full incompressible Navier–Stokes equation were used to investigate how inertia, gravity, and surface tension forces as characterized by the Reynolds (Re), Bond (Bo), and Capillary (Ca) numbers influence pressure and shear stress gradients at the airway wall. Gravity had a significant impact on flow patterns and hydrodynamic stress magnitudes where Bo > 1 led to dramatic changes in bubble shape and increased pressure and shear stress gradients in the upper daughter airway. Interestingly, increased pressure gradients near the bifurcation point (i.e., carina) were only elevated during asymmetric bubble splitting. Although changes in pressure gradient magnitudes were generally more sensitive to Ca, under large Re conditions, both Re and Ca significantly altered the pressure gradient magnitude. We conclude that inertia, gravity, and surface tension can all have a significant impact on microbubble flow patterns and hydrodynamic stresses in bifurcating airways.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ware, L. B., and Matthay, M. A., 2000, “Medical Progress—The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome,” N. Eng. J. Med., 342(18), pp. 1334–1349. [CrossRef]
Ghadiali, S., and Huang, Y., 2011, “Role of Airway Recruitment and Derecruitment in Lung Injury,” Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng., 39(4), pp. 297–317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ghadiali, S. N., and Gaver, D. P., 2008, “Biomechanics of Liquid–Epithelium Interactions in Pulmonary Airways,” Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol., 163(1–3), pp. 232–243. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rubenfeld, G. D., and Herridge, M. S., 2007, “Epidemiology and Outcomes of Acute Lung Injury,” Chest, 131(2), pp. 554–562. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
D'angelo, E., Koutsoukou, A., Della Valle, P., Gentile, G., and Pecchiari, M., 2008, “Cytokine Release, Small Airway Injury, and Parenchymal Damage During Mechanical Ventilation in Normal Open-Chest Rats,” J. Appl. Physiol., 104(1), pp. 41–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vlahakis, N. E., and Hubmayr, R. D., 2005, “Cellular Stress Failure in Ventilator-Injured Lungs,” Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 171(12), pp. 1328–1342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Huang, Y., Haas, C., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2010, “Influence of Transmural Pressure and Cytoskeletal Structure on Nf-Kappa B Activation in Respiratory Epithelial Cells,” Cell. Mol. Bioeng., 3(4), pp. 415–427. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bilek, A. M., Dee, K. C., and Gaver, D. P., 2003, “Mechanisms of Surface-Tension-Induced Epithelial Cell Damage in a Model of Pulmonary Airway Reopening,” J. Appl. Physiol., 94(2), pp. 770–783. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yalcin, H. C., Perry, S. F., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2007, “Influence of Airway Diameter and Cell Confluence on Epithelial Cell Injury in an in Vitro Model of Airway Reopening,” J. Appl. Physiol., 103(5), pp. 1796–1807. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Huang, Y., Crawford, M., Higuita-Castro, N., Nana-Sinkam, P., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2012, “Mir-146a Regulates Mechanotransduction and Pressure-Induced Inflammation in Small Airway Epithelium,” FASEB J., 26(8), pp. 3351–3364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
U.S. House of Representatives, 2010, “House of Representatives Resolution #1122: Supporting the Goals and Ideals of the Year of the Lung 2010,” Second Session of the 111th Congress.
Bretherton, F. P., 1961, “The Motion of Long Bubbles in Tubes,” J. Fluid Mech., 10(2), pp. 166–188. [CrossRef]
Halpern, D., and Gaver, D. P., 1994, “Boundary-Element Analysis of the Time-Dependent Motion of a Semi-Infinite Bubble In a Channel,” J. Comput. Phys., 115(2), pp. 366–375. [CrossRef]
Gaver, D. P., Halpern, D., Jensen, O. E., and Grotberg, J. B., 1996, “The Steady Motion of a Semi-Infinite Bubble Through a Flexible-Walled Channel,” J. Fluid Mech., 319, pp. 25–65. [CrossRef]
Heil, M., 2000, “Finite Reynolds Number Effects in the Propagation of an Air Finger Into a Liquid-Filled Flexible-Walled Channel,” J. Fluid Mech., 424, pp. 21–44. [CrossRef]
Ghadiali, S. N., and Gaver, D. P., 2003, “The Influence of Non-Equilibrium Surfactant Dynamics on the Flow of a Semi-Infinite Bubble in a Rigid Cylindrical Capillary Tube,” J. Fluid Mech., 478, pp. 165–196. [CrossRef]
Ghadiali, S. N., Halpern, D., and Gaver, D. P., 2001, “A Dual-Reciprocity Boundary Element Method for Evaluating Bulk Convective Transport of Surfactant in Free-Surface Flows,” J. Comput. Phys., 171(2), pp. 534–559. [CrossRef]
Smith, B. J., and Gaver, D. P., 2008, “The Pulsatile Propagation of a Finger of Air Within a Fluid-Occluded Cylindrical Tube,” J. Fluid Mech., 601, pp. 1–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kay, S. S., Bilek, A. M., Dee, K. C., and Gaver, D. P., 2004, “Pressure Gradient, not Exposure Duration, Determines the Extent of Epithelial Cell Damage in a Model of Pulmonary Airway Reopening,” J. Appl. Physiol., 97(1), pp. 269–276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yalcin, H. C., Hallow, K. M., Wang, J., Wei, M. T., Ou-Yang, H. D., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2009, “Influence of Cytoskeletal Structure and Mechanics on Epithelial Cell Injury During Cyclic Airway Reopening,” Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol., 297(5), pp. L881–891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dailey, H. L., Ricles, L. M., Yalcin, H. C., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2009, “Image-Based Finite Element Modeling of Alveolar Epithelial Cell Injury During Airway Reopening,” J. Appl. Physiol., 106(1), pp. 221–232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dailey, H. L., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2010, “Influence of Power-Law Rheology on Cell Injury During Microbubble Flows,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 9(3), pp. 263–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Naire, S., and Jensen, O. E., 2005, “Epithelial Cell Deformation During Surfactant-Mediated Airway Reopening: A Theoretical Model,” J. Appl. Physiol., 99(2), pp. 458–471. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Calderon, A. J., Heo, Y. S., Huh, D., Futai, N., Takayama, S., Fowlkes, J. B., and Bull, J. L., 2006, “Microfluidic Model of Bubble Lodging in Microvessel Bifurcations,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 89(24), p. 244103 [CrossRef]
Calderon, A. J., Fowlkes, J. B., and Bull, J. L., 2005, “Bubble Splitting in Bifurcating Tubes: A Model Study of Cardiovascular Gas Emboli Transport,” J. Appl. Physiol., 99(2), pp. 479–487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zheng, Y., Fujioka, H., Grotberg, J. C., and Grotberg, J. B., 2006, “Effects of Inertia and Gravity on Liquid Plug Splitting at a Bifurcation,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 128(5), pp. 707–716. [CrossRef]
Baroud, C. N., Tsikata, S., and Heil, M., 2006, “The Propagation of Low-Viscosity Fingers Into Fluid-Filled Branching Networks,” J. Fluid Mech., 546, pp. 285–294. [CrossRef]
Wu, Y., Fu, T., and Zhu, C., 2012, “Asymmetrical Breakup of Bubbles at a Microfluidic T-Junction Divergence: Feedback Effect of Bubble Collision,” Microfluid. Nanofluid., 13(5), pp. 285–294. [CrossRef]
Fu, T., Ma, Y., and Funfschilling, D., 2011, “Dynamics of Bubble Breakup in a Microfluidic T-Junction Divergence,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 66(18), pp. 4184–4195. [CrossRef]
Calderon, A. J., Eshpuniyani, B., Fowlkes, J. B., and Bull, J. L., 2010, “A Boundary Element Model of the Transport of a Semi-Infinite Bubble Through a Microvessel Bifurcation,” Phys. Fluids, 22(6), p. 061902. [CrossRef]
Cassidy, K. J., Gavriely, N., and Grotberg, J. B., 2001, “Liquid Plug Flow in Straight and Bifurcating Tubes,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 123(6), pp. 580–589. [CrossRef]
Walkley, M. A., Gaskell, P. H., Jimack, P. K., Kelmanson, M. A., and Summers, J. L., 2005, “Finite Element Simulation of Three-Dimensional Free-Surface Flow Problems,” J. Sci. Comput., 24(2), pp. 147–162. [CrossRef]
Levitzky, M., 2007, Pulmonary Physiology 7e, McGraw-Hill Medical, New York.
Lai, S. K., Wang, Y. Y., Wirtz, D., and Hanes, J., 2009, “Micro- and Macrorheology of Mucus,” Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 61(2), pp. 86–100. [CrossRef]
Comsol, 2008, 2008 User Manual for the COMSOL Multiphysics Software Package, COMSOL Inc., Burlington MA.
Dailey, H. L., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2007, “Fluid–Structure Analysis of Microparticle Transport in Deformable Pulmonary Alveoli,” J. Aerosol Sci., 38(3), pp. 269–288. [CrossRef]
Bellani, G., Amigoni, M., and Pesenti, A., 2011, “Positron Emission Tomography in ARDS: A New Look at an Old Syndrome,” Minerva Anestesiol., 77(4), pp. 439–447. [PubMed]
Moerer, O., Hahn, G., and Quintel, M., 2011, “Lung Impedance Measurements to Monitor Alveolar Ventilation,” Curr. Opin. Crit. Care, 17(3), pp. 260–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Perchiazzi, G., Rylander, C., Vena, A., Derosa, S., Polieri, D., Fiore, T., Giuliani, R., and Hedenstierna, G., 2011, “Lung Regional Stress and Strain as a Function of Posture and Ventilatory Mode,” J. Appl. Physiol., 110(5), pp. 1374–1383. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plataki, M., and Hubmayr, R. D., 2010, “The Physical Basis of Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury,” Expert Rev. Respir. Med., 4(3), pp. 373–385. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Oeckler, R. A., and Hubmayr, R. D., 2008, “Cell Wounding and Repair in Ventilator Injured Lungs,” Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol., 163(1–3), pp. 44–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Oeckler, R. A., Lee, W. Y., Park, M. G., Kofler, O., Rasmussen, D. L., Lee, H. B., Belete, H., Walters, B. J., Stroetz, R. W., and Hubmayr, R. D., 2010, “Determinants of Plasma Membrane Wounding by Deforming Stress,” Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol., 299(6), pp. L826–833. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Poornima, J., and Vengadesan, S., 2012, “Numerical Simulation of Bubble Transport in a Bifurcating Microchannel: A Preliminary Study,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 134(8), p. 081005. [CrossRef]
Zheng, Y., Anderson, J. C., Suresh, V., and Grotberg, J. B., 2005, “Effect of Gravity on Liquid Plug Transport Through an Airway Bifurcation Model,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 127(5), pp. 798–806. [CrossRef]
Hazel, A. L., and Heil, M., 2008, “The Influence of Gravity on the Steady Propagation of a Semi-Infinite Bubble Into a Flexible Channel,” Phys. Fluids, 20(9), p. 092109. [CrossRef]
Hazel, A. L., and Heil, M., 2006, “Finite-Reynolds-Number Effects in Steady, Three-Dimensional Airway Reopening,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 128(4), pp. 573–578. [CrossRef]
Zielinski, R., Mihai, C., Kniss, D. A., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2013, “Finite Element Analysis of Traction Force Microscopy: Influences of Cell Mechanics, Adhesion and Morphology,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 135(7), p. 071009. [CrossRef]
Sera, T., Fujioka, H., Yokota, H., Makinouchi, A., Himeno, R., Schroter, R. C., and Tanishita, K., 2003, “Three-Dimensional Visualization and Morphometry of Small Airways From Microfocal X-Ray Computed Tomography,” J. Biomech., 36(11), pp. 1587–1594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jensen, O. E., Horsburgh, M. K., Halpern, D., and Gaver, D. P., 2002, “The Steady Propagation of a Bubble in a Flexible-Walled Channel: Asymptotic and Computational Models,” Phys. Fluids, 14(2), pp. 443–457. [CrossRef]
Higuita-Castro, N., Mihai, C., Hansford, D. J., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2011, “Influence of Airway Wall Compliance on Epithelial Cell Injury During Cyclic Airway Reopening,” FASEB J., 25, p. 1035.4.
Sheer, F. J., Swarts, J. D., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2012, “Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Eustachian Tube Function Under Normal and Pathological Conditions,” Med. Eng. Phys., 34(5), pp. 605–616. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sheer, F. J., Swarts, J. D., and Ghadiali, S. N., 2010, “Finite Element Analysis of Eustachian Tube Function in Cleft Palate Infants Based on Histological Reconstructions,” Cleft Palate Craniofac. J., 47(6), pp. 600–610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic view of microbubble propagation in a two-generation bifurcating airway. Curved lines indicate locations for hydrodynamic stress evaluation and represent the upper, lower, and middle interior airway walls.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of bubble shapes during propagation with fixed Ca = 0.082 and Re = 2.66 and varying Bond numbers: (a) Bo = 0.068, (t = 0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.03, 0.048 s) (b) Bo = 0.136 (t = 0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05 s), (c) Bo = 0.68 (t = 0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.03, 0.045 s), and (d) Bo = 1.36 (t = 0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04 s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Velocity fields and pressure distribution within the fluid during bubble propagation with fixed Ca = 0.082 and Re = 2.66 and varying Bond numbers: (a) Bo = 0.068 (t = 0.048 s), (b) Bo = 0.136 (t = 0.05 s), (c) Bo = 0.68 (t = 0.045 s), and (d) Bo = 1.36 (t = 0.04 s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Pressure and shear stress gradients along the upper and lower daughter airway wall as a function of Bond number. Data were obtained for different Bond numbers at fixed Ca = 0.082 and Re = 2.66 at t = 0.04 s. (a) Pressure gradients in the upper daughter airway, (b) pressure gradients in the lower daughter airway, (c) shear stress gradients in upper daughter airway, and (d) shear stress gradients in lower daughter airway.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Maximum pressure gradients along the upper, lower, and middle interior walls as a function of Bo. At low Bo, maximum pressure gradient is comparable on the upper, lower, and middle interior walls while at higher Bo, maximum pressure gradient is higher on the upper and middle interior wall.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure and shear stress gradients along the upper and lower daughter airway wall as a function of Reynolds number. Data was obtained for different Reynolds numbers at fixed Ca = 0.082 and Bo = 0.136. (a) Pressure gradients in the upper daughter airway, (b) pressure gradients in the lower daughter airway, (c) shear stress gradients in upper daughter airway, and (d) shear stress gradients in lower daughter airway.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Maximum pressure gradient calculations at fixed Capillary number (Ca = 0.082) by varying Bond numbers (Bo = 0.068, Bo = 0.136, Bo = 0.68, Bo = 1.36) and Reynolds numbers (Re = 2.66, Re = 26.6, Re = 53.2, Re = 133) for (a) upper daughter airway and (b) lower daughter airway wall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Pressure and shear stress gradients along the upper and lower daughter airway walls as a function of Capillary number. Data were obtained for different Capillary numbers at fixed Re = 2.66 and Bo = 0.136. (a) Pressure gradients in the upper daughter airway, (b) pressure gradients in the lower daughter airway, (c) shear stress gradients in upper daughter airway, and (d) and shear stress gradients in lower daughter airway.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Maximum pressure gradient calculations at fixed Reynolds number (Re = 2.66) by varying Bond numbers (Bo = 0.068, Bo = 0.136, Bo = 0.68, Bo = 1.36) and Capillary numbers (Ca = 0.82, Ca = 0.082, Ca = 0.008, Ca = 0.0008) for (a) upper daughter airway and (b) lower daughter airway

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Sensitivity of maximum pressure gradient to changes in Re, Ca, and Bo for different baseline values of Re. (a) Represents data from the upper daughter airway and (b) represents data from the lower daughter airway.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) Velocity field and bubble shape during propagation in a straight 2D channel. Solid line is the initial bubble shape. (b) Comparison of the dimensionless film thickness obtained with current finite element technique (triangles) with Bretherton's asymptotic predictions (dashed line) and BEM simulations (solid line).

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 Journal Articles
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