Simulating Pulsatile Flows Through a Pipe Orifice by an Immersed-Boundary Method

Alexander Yakhot; Leopold Grinberg; Nikolay Nikitin

doi:10.1115/1.1845554

Journal of Fluids Engineering | Volume 126 | Issue 6 | Article

< Previous Article Next Article >

Article

Simulating Pulsatile Flows Through a Pipe Orifice by an Immersed-Boundary Method

Alexander Yakhot, Leopold Grinberg and Nikolay Nikitin

[+] Author and Article Information

Alexander Yakhot

The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva 84105, Israel

Leopold Grinberg

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva 84105, Israel

Nikolay Nikitin

Institute of Mechanics, Moscow State University, 1 Michurinski prospekt, 119899 Moscow, Russia

J. Fluids Eng 126(6), 911-918 (Mar 11, 2005) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1845554 History: Received July 24, 2003; Revised March 26, 2004; Online March 11, 2005

Article

References

Figures

Tables

Citing Articles

Purchase this Content

$25.00

Purchase

Learn about subscription and purchase options

Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Schematic design of a pipe with an orifice

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; steady flow

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Time history of the L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; pulsatile flow

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Creeping flow. Dimensionless (a) pressure drop Δp_c and (b) maximum velocity excess ΔU_c vs d/D.

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

ϕ_Q vs Ws,d/D=0.75, solid line—Sexl 9

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

ϕ_Q vs Ws,d/D=0.5, solid line—Sexl 9

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

γ_Q/γ_p vs Ws,d/D=0.75

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

γ_Q/γ_p vs Ws,d/D=0.5

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

γ_LL_b0 vs Re_m,Ws<3

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

L_b0 vs Re_m

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

ϕ_L vs Ws,d/D=0.75

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

ϕ_L vs Ws,d/D=0.5

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

L_b(t) vs Δp(t),Re_m=14,d/D=0.5

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

L_b(t) vs Q(t),Re_m=14,d/D=0.5

View Large | Save Figure | Download Slide (.ppt)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

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

PDF
Email

You must be logged in as an individual user to share content.

Return to: Simulating Pulsatile Flows Through a Pipe Orifice by an Immersed-Boundary Method

Copyright in the material you requested is held by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Privacy Policy for further information.
Share
Get Citation

Yakhot A, Grinberg L, Nikitin N. Simulating Pulsatile Flows Through a Pipe Orifice by an Immersed-Boundary Method. ASME. J. Fluids Eng. 2005;126(6):911-918. doi:10.1115/1.1845554.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

© Copyright
Get Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.

Simulating Pulsatile Flows Through a Pipe Orifice by an Immersed-Boundary Method

References

Figures

Schematic design of a pipe with an orifice

L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; steady flow

Time history of the L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; pulsatile flow

L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition vs Δt²; pulsatile flow

Vorticity contours

Discharge coefficient, C_d. 1—experiment, 2—present, 3— Ref. 7.

Creeping flow. Streamlines and vorticity contours, Re_m=0.01.

Creeping flow. Dimensionless (a) pressure drop Δp_c and (b) maximum velocity excess ΔU_c vs d/D.

ϕ_Q vs Ws,d/D=0.75, solid line—Sexl 9

ϕ_Q vs Ws,d/D=0.5, solid line—Sexl 9

γ_Q/γ_p vs Ws,d/D=0.75

γ_Q/γ_p vs Ws,d/D=0.5

γ_LL_b0 vs Re_m,Ws<3

L_b0 vs Re_m

ϕ_L vs Ws,d/D=0.75

ϕ_L vs Ws,d/D=0.5

L_b(t) vs Δp(t),Re_m=14,d/D=0.5

L_b(t) vs Q(t),Re_m=14,d/D=0.5

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related Content

Journals

Conference Proceedings

eBooks

Simulating Pulsatile Flows Through a Pipe Orifice by an Immersed-Boundary Method

References

Figures

Schematic design of a pipe with an orifice

L2-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; steady flow

Time history of the L2-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; pulsatile flow

L2-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition vs Δt2; pulsatile flow

Vorticity contours

Discharge coefficient, Cd. 1—experiment, 2—present, 3— Ref. 7.

Creeping flow. Streamlines and vorticity contours, Rem=0.01.

Creeping flow. Dimensionless (a) pressure drop Δpc and (b) maximum velocity excess ΔUc vs d/D.

ϕQ vs Ws,d/D=0.75, solid line—Sexl 9

ϕQ vs Ws,d/D=0.5, solid line—Sexl 9

γQ/γp vs Ws,d/D=0.75

γQ/γp vs Ws,d/D=0.5

γLLb0 vs Rem,Ws<3

Lb0 vs Rem

ϕL vs Ws,d/D=0.75

ϕL vs Ws,d/D=0.5

Lb(t) vs Δp(t),Rem=14,d/D=0.5

Lb(t) vs Q(t),Rem=14,d/D=0.5

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related Content

Journals

Conference Proceedings

eBooks

L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; steady flow

Time history of the L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition; pulsatile flow

L₂-norm error in the no-slip boundary condition vs Δt²; pulsatile flow

Discharge coefficient, C_d. 1—experiment, 2—present, 3— Ref. 7.

Creeping flow. Streamlines and vorticity contours, Re_m=0.01.

Creeping flow. Dimensionless (a) pressure drop Δp_c and (b) maximum velocity excess ΔU_c vs d/D.

ϕ_Q vs Ws,d/D=0.75, solid line—Sexl 9

ϕ_Q vs Ws,d/D=0.5, solid line—Sexl 9

γ_Q/γ_p vs Ws,d/D=0.75

γ_Q/γ_p vs Ws,d/D=0.5

γ_LL_b0 vs Re_m,Ws<3

L_b0 vs Re_m

ϕ_L vs Ws,d/D=0.75

ϕ_L vs Ws,d/D=0.5

L_b(t) vs Δp(t),Re_m=14,d/D=0.5

L_b(t) vs Q(t),Re_m=14,d/D=0.5