An accurate representation of the flow field in blood pumps is important for the design and optimization of blood pumps. The primary turbulence modeling methods applied to blood pumps have been the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) or URANS (unsteady RANS) method. Large eddy simulation (LES) method has been introduced to simulate blood pumps. Nonetheless, LES has not been widely used to assist in the design and optimization of blood pumps to date due to its formidable computational cost. The purpose of this study is to explore the potential of the LES technique as a fast and accurate engineering approach for the simulation of rotary blood pumps. The performance of “Light LES” (using the same time and spatial resolutions as the URANS) and LES in two rotary blood pumps was evaluated by comparing the results with the URANS and extensive experimental results. This study showed that the results of both “Light LES” and LES are superior to URANS, in terms of both performance curves and key flow features. URANS could not predict the flow separation and recirculation in diffusers for both pumps. In contrast, LES is superior to URANS in capturing these flows, performing well for both design and off-design conditions. The differences between the “Light LES” and LES results were relatively small. This study shows that with less computational cost than URANS, “Light LES” can be considered as a cost-effective engineering approach to assist in the design and optimization of rotary blood pumps.
KormosRLCowgerJPaganiFD, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons intermacs database annual report: evolving indications, outcomes, and scientific partnerships. J Heart Lung Transplant2019; 38: 114–126.
2.
GraefeRHenselerASteinseiferU.Multivariate assessment of the effect of pump design and pump gap design parameters on blood trauma. Artif Organs2016; 40: 568–576.
3.
GhadimiBNejatANourbakhshSA, et al. Multi-objective genetic algorithm assisted by an artificial neural network metamodel for shape optimization of a centrifugal blood pump. Artif Organs2019; 43: E76–E93.
4.
WiegmannLBoësSde ZélicourtD, et al. Blood pump design variations and their influence on hydraulic performance and indicators of hemocompatibility. Ann Biomed Eng2018; 46: 417–428.
5.
YuH. Flow design optimization of blood pumps considering hemolysis. Dissertation. Otto von Guericke Universität Magdeburg, Magdeburg, 2015.
6.
FraserKHTaskinMEGriffithBP, et al. The use of computational fluid dynamics in the development of ventricular assist devices. Med Eng Phys2011; 33: 263–280.
7.
MarsdenALBazilevsYLongCC, et al. Recent advances in computational methodology for simulation of mechanical circulatory assist devices. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med2014; 6: 169–188.
8.
WuPBoehningFGroß-HardtS, et al. On the accuracy of hemolysis models in couette-type blood shearing devices. Artif Organs2018; 42: E290–E303.
9.
DaiWFWuPLiuGM.A two-phase flow approach for modeling blood stasis and estimating the thrombosis potential of a ventricular assist device. Int J Artif Organs. Epub ahead of print 1 December 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0391398820975405
10.
HariharanPGiarraMReddyV, et al. Multilaboratory particle image velocimetry analysis of the FDA benchmark nozzle model to support validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations. J Biomech Eng2011; 133: 041002.
11.
HariharanPAycockKIBuesenM, et al. Inter-laboratory characterization of the velocity field in the FDA blood pump model using particle image velocimetry (PIV). Cardiovasc Eng Technol2018; 9: 623–640.
12.
StewartSFCPatersonEGBurgreenGW, et al. Assessment of CFD performance in simulations of an idealized medical device: results of FDA’s first computational interlaboratory study. Cardiovasc Eng Technol2012; 3: 139–160.
13.
StewartSFCHariharanPPatersonEG, et al. Results of FDA’s first interlaboratory computational study of a nozzle with a sudden contraction and conical diffuser. Cardiovasc Eng Technol2013; 4: 374–391.
14.
MalinauskasRAHariharanPDaySW, et al. FDA benchmark medical device flow models for CFD validation. ASAIO J2017; 63: 150–160.
15.
WuPGroß-HardtSBoehningF, et al. An energy-dissipation-based power-law formulation for estimating hemolysis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2020; 19: 591–602.
16.
WuPGaoQHsuPL.On the representation of effective stress for computing hemolysis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2019; 18: 665–679.
17.
TornerBKonnigkLAbrougN, et al. Turbulence and turbulent flow structures in a ventricular assist device—a numerical study using the large-eddy simulation. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng2021; 37(3): e3431.
18.
ZhangJGellmanBKoertA, et al. Computational and experimental evaluation of the fluid dynamics and hemocompatibility of the CentriMag blood pump. Artif Organs2006; 30: 168–177.
19.
ZhangJChenZGriffithBP, et al. Computational characterization of flow and blood damage potential of the new maglev CH-VAD pump versus the HVAD and HeartMate II pumps. Int J Artif Organs2020; 43(10): 653–662.
20.
WuPMeyersJ.Globally conservative high-order filters for large-eddy simulation and computational aeroacoustics. Comput Fluids2011; 48: 150–162.
21.
WuPMeyersJ.A constraint for the subgrid-scale stresses in the logarithmic region of high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers: a solution to the log-layer mismatch problem. Phys Fluids2013; 25: 015104.
22.
WuPFengZCaoSJ.Fast and accurate prediction of airflow and drag force for duct ventilation using wall-modeled large-eddy simulation. Build Environ2018; 141: 226–235.
23.
WuPZhangLGaoQ, et al. Effect of turbulent inlet conditions on the prediction of flow field and hemolysis in the FDA ideal medical device. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2021; 235: 391–401.
24.
TobinNManningKB.large-eddy simulations of flow in the FDA benchmark nozzle geometry to predict hemolysis. Cardiovasc Eng Technol2020; 11(3): 254–267.
25.
TavoularisSSahrapourAAhmedNU, et al. Towards optimal control of blood flow in artificial hearts. Cardiovasc Eng2003; 8(1-2): 20–31.
26.
YoganathanAPChandranKBSotiropoulosF.Flow in prosthetic heart valves: state-of-the-art and future directions. Ann Biomed Eng2005; 33(12): 1689–1694.
27.
MedvitzRBReddyVDeutschS, et al. Validation of a CFD methodology for positive displacement LVAD analysis using PIV data. J Biomech Eng2009; 131(11): 111009.
28.
SzwastMMoskalAPiątkiewiczW.A new method for assessing haemolysis in a rotary blood Pump using large eddy simulations (LES). Chem Process Eng2017; 38(2): 231–239.
29.
Gross-HardtSHSonntagSJBoehningF, et al. Crucial aspects for using computational fluid dynamics as a predictive evaluation tool for blood Pumps. ASAIO J2019; 65: 864–873.
30.
BergNFuchsLPrahl WittbergL.Flow characteristics and coherent structures in a centrifugal blood pump. Flow Turbul Combust2019; 102(2): 469–483.
31.
ChapmanDR.Computational aerodynamics development and outlook. AIAA J1979; 17(12): 1293–1313.
32.
TornerBKonnigkLHallierS, et al. Large eddy simulation in a rotary blood pump: viscous shear stress computation and comparison with unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulation. Int J Artif Organs2018; 41: 752–763.
33.
NicoudFDucrosF.Subgrid-scale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient tensor. Flow Turbul Combust1999; 62(3): 183–200.
34.
SchüleCYThamsenBBlümelB, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of an axial rotary blood pump. Artif Organs2016; 40: E192–E202.
35.
WuWT. Theoretical and computational studies on thrombus formation and multiphase characteristics of blood flow. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2015.
36.
WeihingPLetzgusJBanggaG, et al. Hybrid RANS/LES capabilities of the flow solver FLOWer—application to flow around wind turbines. In: Symposium on hybrid RANS-LES methods. Papers Contributed to the 6th Symposium on Hybrid RANS-LES Methods, 26–28 September 2016, Strasbourg: Springer, 2018, 137: 369.
37.
ASME V&V 20-2009. Standard for verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer. ASME, 2009.
38.
MorrisonTMHariharanPFunkhouserCM, et al. Assessing computational model credibility using a risk-based framework: application to hemolysis in centrifugal blood pumps. ASAIO J2019; 65(4): 349–360.
39.
GoodBCManningKB.Computational modeling of the Food and Drug Administration’s benchmark centrifugal blood pump. Artif Organs2020; 44(7): E263–E276.
40.
HeckMLYenASnyderTA, et al. Flow-field simulations and hemolysis estimates for the food and Drug Administration critical path initiative centrifugal blood pump. Artif Organs2017; 41(10): E129–E140.
