CFD in Ventury Tube

The Journal of Young Investigators :: JYI.
org Page 1 of 26
A Novel, Non-Invasive Approach to Diagnosing Urinary

Tract Obstruction Using CFD
Table 5. Measured inlet and outlet

Table 6. Measured inlet and outlet velocities in two-dimensional cross
velocities in two-dimensional cross sectional models of both healthy and
sectional models of both healthy and obstructed cases of the ureter, simulated
obstructed cases of the urethra, in turbulent standard k-epsilon solver
simulated in turbulent standard k- (Fluent). Specific locations of
epsilon solver (Fluent). Specified obstruction were at the ureteropelvic
locations of obstruction were at the junction, abdomino-pelvic junction, and
bladder neck, prostatic urethra (benign ureterovesical junction. Inlet velocity of
prostatic hyperplasia, BPH), and 0.284 m/s converged in all cases. Data
spongy urethra. An inlet value of 5.0 indicates decreased ureteral outflow as
m/s enabled convergence in the healthy a result of disease, especially notable in
model. An inlet velocity of 1.166 m/s the cases of UPJ and UVJ constriction.
converged only in the case of bulbar *Note that in the case of UVJ
spongy urethral constriction. With the constriction, due to the severity of
exception of the case of bladder neck constriction, the outlet velocity was
constriction, the data indicates measured to be zero because of the
relatively higher outlet flow velocities converging effects of wall shear stress
(as compared in magnitude to the generated from the two sides of the
specified inlet values). tract. Prior to complete flow
obstruction, the flow displayed a
velocity range between ~2.98 m/s and
4.26 m/s.
Table 1. Cartesian coordinates used for

two-dimensional cross section of
Table 4. The quantitative effect of healthy ureteral grid, determined via a
variable constriction severity on flow 10:1 anatomical scaling in Gambit in
characteristics for the two-dimensional conjunction with specific anatomical
symmetric Venturi cross-section. parameters. Coordinates were labeled
Numeric data for velocity (in m/s), static A1-G1 and A2-G2 and connected via
pressure, dynamic pressure, and total non-uniform Rational B-Splines, as
pressure (in Pa) at the inlet, outlet, and displayed in Figure 5. Both the
site of constriction are shown for both abdominal and pelvic segments of the
the laminar (Re=700) and turbulent ureter are included.
standard k-epsilon (Re=5,000) cases
(Fluent). Compared to the control case
of moderate constriction severity (1.5
mm deep, 3 mm wide), mild and severe
cases were analyzed. Note that in some
cases, a range of values, rather than a
single value, more accurately depicted
the transverse variability in certain Table 3. Numeric flow data for two-
variables. Higher inlet velocities were dimensional cross section of control
specified in the turbulent solver to Venturi comparing the laminar
http://www.jyi.org/JYI-News/jn.php?id=1518 28/05/2010
The Journal of Young Investigators :: JYI.org Page 2 of 26
accommodate larger Reynolds values. (Re=700) and turbulent standard k-
The trend indicates an overall direct epsilon (Re=5,000) cases (Fluent).
correlation between velocity, the Shown are the approximate measured
magnitudes of pressure, and contour values for velocity (in m/s),
constriction severity, as expected. static pressure, dynamic pressure, and
total pressure (in Pa) at the inlet, outlet,
and site of constriction, as depicted in
Figures 7 and 8. Note that in some
the transverse variability in certain
variables. Significantly higher
magnitudes of velocity and pressure
were measured in the turbulent case as
compared to the laminar case because
inlet velocities needed to be greater to
accommodate larger Reynolds values.
From the relative velocities at the site of
constriction, an inverse relationship
between velocity and diameter
illustrates the validity of conservation of
mass.
Table 2. Cartesian coordinates used for Figure 12. Velocity contours of two-
two-dimensional cross section of dimensional cross section of obstructed
healthy urethral grid, determined via a cases of the urethra, simulated in
20:17 anatomical scaling in Gambit in turbulent standard k-epsilon solver
conjunction with specific anatomical (Fluent). As shown, contours are
parameters. Note that each coordinate magnified at respective sites of
displayed in the table was multiplied by constriction. Specifically displayed are
a factor of 20/17 prior to plotting in the cases for bladder neck obstruction
Gambit. Coordinates were labeled A1- (a), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)
R1 and A2-R2 and connected via non- (b), and bulbar spongy urethral (first-
uniform Rational B-Splines, as angle) constriction (c). Blue contours
displayed in Figure 6. Anatomical represent minimal (zero) values, while
segments included in the model are the red contours represent maximal values
prostatic urethra, membranous urethra, of velocity. Trends illustrate that
spongy (penile) urethra (both bulbar velocity continues to increase as
and non-bulbar), first angle (bend), and diameter narrows; however, depending
navicular fossa. on the severity of the constriction, as the
diameter continues to narrow, the
effects of wall shear stress generated on
each side of the tract converge, thereby
causing velocity to drop instantaneously
to zero (complete obstruction).
Figure 10. Velocity contours of two-

dimensional cross sections of obstructed
Figure 11. Velocity contours and cases of the ureter, simulated in
vectors of two-dimensional cross turbulent standard k-epsilon solver
section of healthy urethra, simulated in (Fluent). As shown, contours are
turbulent standard k-epsilon solver magnified at the outlets (ureterovesical
(Fluent). Contours are shown for the junction) for the cases of UPJ
urethra as a whole (a) and magnified at constriction (a), constriction at the
the bladder neck (b). Vectors are shown abdomino-pelvic junction (b), and UVJ
for magnified region at the navicular constriction (c). Blue contours represent
fossa and urethral orifice (c) to display minimal (zero) values, while red
circulatory nature of flow. Blue contours represent maximal values of
contours represent minimal (zero) velocity. Compared to the healthy
values, while red contours represent ureter, constricted cases displayed
maximal values of velocity. Trend decreased ureteral outflow, notable
displays increased velocities in especially in the cases of UPJ and UVJ
narrower regions of the urethra, as constriction.
expected, with outlet velocity slightly
greater than at the inlet.

dimensional cross section of healthy
ureter, simulated in turbulent standard
k-epsilon solver (Fluent). Contours are
shown for the ureter as a whole (a), and
for magnified region at the
ureteropelvic junction (UPJ, inlet) (b)
and ureterovesical junction (UVJ,
outlet) (c). Blue contours represent
minimal (zero) values, while red
contours represent maximal values of
velocity. Trend indicates a steady
increase in urine velocity throughout
the ureter from the UPJ to the UVJ, due
to natural narrowing of the diameter.
Figure 8. Flow characteristics in Figure 7. Flow characteristics in

turbulent standard k-epsilon solver laminar solver (Fluent) for two-
(Fluent) for two-dimensional control dimensional control Venturi. Reynolds
Venturi. Reynolds number was 5,000 number was 700 based on inlet velocity,
based on inlet velocity, and constriction and constriction was of moderate
was of moderate severity (1.5 mm deep, severity (1.5 mm deep, 3 mm wide). The
3 mm wide). The effect of the effect of the constriction on velocity,
constriction on velocity, static pressure, static pressure, dynamic pressure, and
dynamic pressure, and total pressure total pressure are shown by respective
are shown by respective contour plots, contour plots. Blue contours represent
and are shown for comparison to fluid minimal (zero) values, while red
contours represent maximal values.
dynamics of the same model in the Velocity and dynamic pressure display
laminar solver (Re=700). Blue contours maximal values at site of constriction,
represent minimal (zero) values, while whereas static pressure is at a
red contours represent maximal values. minimum. Note that, despite the laminar
As in the laminar solver, velocity and flow profile, contours appear to drift
dynamic pressure display maximal upwards, possibly an effect of flow that
values at site of constriction whereas has not developed fully.
static pressure is at a minimum.
However, the non-symmetric
distribution of contours is a result of the
turbulent nature of the flow.
Underdeveloped flow may also
contribute to the observed distribution.
Figure 5. Two-
dimensional cross
sectional healthy model
of the ureter, created via
a 10:1 anatomical scaling
in Gambit. Cartesian
coordinates used are
presented in Table 1.
Coordinates were labeled
A1-G1 and A2-G2. Green
lines represent triangular
mesh (0.5 spacing,
determined by grid
independence test), blue
line designates velocity
inlet (ureteropelvic
junction, edge A1A2), and
red line designates
pressure outlet
(ureterovesical junction,
edge G1G2). Abdominal
and pelvic segments of
ureter connect at C1 and
C2. Non-uniform
Rational B-Splines were
used to connect ureter
walls, A1G1 and A2G2.
Model was subsequently
simulated in Fluent.
Figure 4. Three-dimensional control

grid with symmetric constriction.
Venturi diameter was 5 mm and
constriction diameter was 1.5 mm deep
and 3 mm wide (moderate). Model was
created in Gambit by rotating respective
two-dimensional cross sectional grid
360 degrees about the horizontal line of
symmetry. Black lines represent
tetrahedral mesh, blue face designates
Figure 6. Two-dimensional velocity inlet, and red face designates
cross sectional healthy model pressure outlet. Model was subsequently
of male urethra, created via simulated in Fluent.
Coordinates were labeled A1
-R1 and A2-R2. Green lines
represent triangular mesh
(0.5 spacing, determined by Figure 2. Two-dimensional cross
grid independence test), blue section of grid with variable distance
line designates velocity inlet between constrictions, relative to
(bladder neck, edge A1A2), control case. Specifically shown, a
and red line designates distance of 6 mm spans between two
pressure outlet (urethral moderate constrictions (1.5 mm deep, 3
orifice, edge R1R2). mm wide). Green lines represent
Prostatic urethra conjoins triangular mesh, blue line designates
membranous urethra velocity inlet, and red line designates
between points G and H, and pressure outlet. Model was created in
membranous urethra Gambit for subsequent simulation in
conjoins spongy (penile) Fluent.
urethra at point H. Navicular
fossa is encompassed by
segment PR. Non-uniform
Rational B-Splines were used
to connect urethra walls,
A1R1 and A2R2. Model was
subsequently simulated in
Fluent. Figure 3. Two-dimensional cross
section of grid with multiple
constrictions and variable distances
between them. The effects of both
constriction severity (depth, width) and
distance were assessed. Specifically
shown, two constrictions with a medium
spanning distance and moderate
constriction (1.5 mm deep, 3 mm wide).
Green lines represent triangular mesh,
blue line designates velocity inlet, and
red line designates pressure outlet.
Model was created in Gambit for
subsequent simulation in Fluent
Equation 1
Equation 2
Equation 4
Equation 5
Equation 3
Equation 6
Equation 7 Equation 8
Figure 1. Two-dimensional cross

section of control grid with symmetric
constriction. Venturi diameter was 5
mm and constriction diameter was 1.5
mm deep and 3 mm wide (moderate).
subsequent simulation in Fluent.
25 February 2010 -
ABSTRACT
Urinary tract obstruction is a common clinical problem involving the narrowing of the ureters or
urethra. Current diagnostic methods are invasive and costly, and urologists are constantly seeking
new, inexpensive, non-invasive measures to diagnose obstruction. The present study investigates
diagnostic applications of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to urinary tract obstruction for the
first time. Various hypothetical models were initially created in Gambit 2.1.6, in which the physics
of flow was evaluated based on varying geometries and conditions. These models presented short
segments of the tract and possible effects of obstruction. Flow analysis was conducted in Fluent
6.1.22 by comparing contours of velocity, static pressure, dynamic pressure, total pressure, and
wall shear stress to results predicted by flow theory. Realistic models of both healthy and
obstructed urethras and ureters were then similarly created and simulated. CFD equations
accurately predicted the expected flow characteristics through both hypothetical and realistic
models. Comparison of the calculated urethral outlet velocity in the models, between 6.91 and
16.9 m/s at the urethral orifice, to human uroflowmetry data shows that the simulated conditions
fall within the range of realistic human flow. The accuracy of the models suggests future clinical
potential of using CFD with current techniques in human tract analysis, secondary flow effects,
disease prevention, and non-invasive diagnosis.
INTRODUCTION
Urinary tract obstruction is a common problem causing urinary stasis as a result of urethral or
ureteral constriction anywhere along the urinary tract. Frequent causes of obstruction include
benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate cancer, stones, urethral strictures, bacterial
infections, and surgical trauma (Resnick and Sutherland 2004). In females, although less common,
obstruction may arise from pregnancy complications, stones, or pelvic malignancies; urinary
obstruction in children is often a direct result of congenital anomalies (Resnick and Sutherland
2004).

velocities in two-dimensional cross
sectional models of both healthy and
obstructed cases of the urethra,
simulated in turbulent standard k-
epsilon solver (Fluent). Specified
locations of obstruction were at the
bladder neck, prostatic urethra (benign
prostatic hyperplasia, BPH), and
spongy urethra. An inlet value of 5.0
m/s enabled convergence in the healthy
model. An inlet velocity of 1.166 m/s
converged only in the case of bulbar
spongy urethral constriction. With the
exception of the case of bladder neck
constriction, the data indicates
relatively higher outlet flow velocities
(as compared in magnitude to the
specified inlet values). (Click image for
larger version)
Currently, diagnosis of obstruction can be performed by lab studies including urodynamic studies,
imaging studies, or surgical procedures. Imaging studies, such as ultrasonography, computed
tomography (CT) scans, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are costly and time consuming
(Resnick and Sutherland 2004), and the available results are limited to resolutions on the order of
1 mm due to issues of hardware, signal-to-noise ratio and acquisition time (Kim et al. 1997; Peled
and Yeshurun 2001; Elad and Hel-Or 2001). Urodynamic studies and endoscopic procedures, such
as cystoscopy, are invasive and may cause further complications (Resnick and Sutherland 2004).
A numerical approach utilizing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) may eliminate such
inconveniences.

velocities in two-dimensional cross
sectional models of both healthy and
obstructed cases of the ureter, simulated
in turbulent standard k-epsilon solver
(Fluent). Specific locations of
obstruction were at the ureteropelvic
junction, abdomino-pelvic junction, and
ureterovesical junction. Inlet velocity of
0.284 m/s converged in all cases. Data
indicates decreased ureteral outflow as
a result of disease, especially notable in
the cases of UPJ and UVJ constriction.
*Note that in the case of UVJ
constriction, due to the severity of
constriction, the outlet velocity was
measured to be zero because of the
converging effects of wall shear stress
generated from the two sides of the
tract. Prior to complete flow
obstruction, the flow displayed a
velocity range between ~2.98 m/s and
4.26 m/s. (Click image for larger
version)
Much research in the field of mechanical engineering is concerned with flow through constricted
tubes and its application to various organ systems. CFD modeling has been applied to the
circulatory system in numerous ways involving flow effects of aneurysms, blood flow through
stenoses (Siouffi et al. 1998; Blackburn and Sherwin 2005; Jung et al. 2004; Jou and Berger
2000), analysis of heart valves (Lim et al. 1980), and mechanics of arterial diseases (RuDusky
2003). CFD has also been applied to the respiratory system with regard to flow simulation and
analysis (Luo et al. 2004). Fluid mechanics within the gastrointestinal tract have even been
evaluated (Ooi et al. 2004). Such studies commonly involve the use of CFD software packages
such as FLUENT, POLYFLOW, or FIDAP to perform model simulations and numerical analysis,
along with compatible meshing software such as GAMBIT, TGRID, or G/Turbo to create the
models themselves.
Table 4. The quantitative effect of

variable constriction severity on flow
characteristics for the two-dimensional
symmetric Venturi cross-section.
Numeric data for velocity (in m/s), static
pressure, dynamic pressure, and total
pressure (in Pa) at the inlet, outlet, and
site of constriction are shown for both
the laminar (Re=700) and turbulent
standard k-epsilon (Re=5,000) cases
(Fluent). Compared to the control case
of moderate constriction severity (1.5
mm deep, 3 mm wide), mild and severe
cases were analyzed. Note that in some
variables. Higher inlet velocities were
specified in the turbulent solver to
The trend indicates an overall direct
correlation between velocity, the
magnitudes of pressure, and
constriction severity, as expected.
(Click image for larger version)
The present study investigates a novel technique of urinary tract simulation in both healthy and
symptomatic patients using CFD and quantitatively evaluates the diagnostic potential of
computerized models. In particular, Fluent 6.1.22 was used to simulate the flow mechanics inside
the urinary tract, with emphasis on the effects of urinary tract obstruction, and flow was evaluated
numerically by varying geometries and fluid properties. Applications of the models may include
accurately predicting velocity and wall shear stress within the tract; extending the numerical
simulation to include the secondary flow effects; determining whether flow analysis within the
tract can help predict disease before it occurs; and creating a virtual diagnostic tool that applies
CFD to the urinary tract for the first time.

healthy ureteral grid, determined via a
10:1 anatomical scaling in Gambit in
conjunction with specific anatomical
parameters. Coordinates were labeled
A1-G1 and A2-G2 and connected via
non-uniform Rational B-Splines, as
displayed in Figure 5. Both the
abdominal and pelvic segments of the
ureter are included. (Click image for
larger version)
METHODS
All models were created in Gambit 2.1.6 and simulated in Fluent 6.1.22. Contour plots and vectors
of velocity, static pressure, dynamic pressure, total pressure, and wall shear stress were evaluated
for each model, as such factors play a crucial role in clinical diagnosis. Path lines colored by
particle identification and by velocity were also analyzed.
Table 3. Numeric flow data for two-

dimensional cross section of control
Venturi comparing the laminar
(Re=700) and turbulent standard k-
epsilon (Re=5,000) cases (Fluent).
Shown are the approximate measured
contour values for velocity (in m/s),
static pressure, dynamic pressure, and
total pressure (in Pa) at the inlet, outlet,
and site of constriction, as depicted in
Figures 7 and 8. Note that in some
variables. Significantly higher
magnitudes of velocity and pressure
were measured in the turbulent case as
compared to the laminar case because
inlet velocities needed to be greater to
From the relative velocities at the site of
constriction, an inverse relationship
between velocity and diameter
illustrates the validity of conservation of
mass. (Click image for larger version)
In Fluent, urine properties were assumed to be those of liquid water, as previously assumed
(Cummings et al. 2004). The following properties of liquid water, obtained from the Fluent solver,
were used for Reynolds number calculations: density=998.2 kg/m3 and viscosity=0.001003 kg/
(m*s). In the laminar model, second-order pressure and upwind momentum were used to
minimize truncation and discretization errors. For turbulence modeling, the standard k- solver was
used, and second-order upwind was used for both k and . Two major types of models were
created: hypothetical and realistic.

healthy urethral grid, determined via a
20:17 anatomical scaling in Gambit in
conjunction with specific anatomical
parameters. Note that each coordinate
displayed in the table was multiplied by
a factor of 20/17 prior to plotting in
Gambit. Coordinates were labeled A1-
R1 and A2-R2 and connected via non-
uniform Rational B-Splines, as
displayed in Figure 6. Anatomical
segments included in the model are the
prostatic urethra, membranous urethra,
spongy (penile) urethra (both bulbar
and non-bulbar), first angle (bend), and
navicular fossa. (Click image for larger
version)
Hypothetical Models
The hypothetical models presented short segments of the urinary tract and potential geometric
representations of obstruction. In these models, more attention was paid towards investigating the
physics of flow and its dynamicity, based on variable geometries and boundary conditions. For all
simulated models, Reynolds number was varied and simulated in the appropriate solver. Reynolds
values of 700 and 5,000 were compared; inlet velocities were calculated to be 0.1406732 and
1.0048087 m/s, respectively, using Equation 6. Each model was further enhanced to more
precisely apply to the human urinary tract.

dimensional cross section of obstructed
cases of the urethra, simulated in
turbulent standard k-epsilon solver
(Fluent). As shown, contours are
magnified at respective sites of
constriction. Specifically displayed are
the cases for bladder neck obstruction
(a), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)
(b), and bulbar spongy urethral (first-
angle) constriction (c). Blue contours
represent minimal (zero) values, while
red contours represent maximal values
of velocity. Trends illustrate that
velocity continues to increase as
diameter narrows; however, depending
on the severity of the constriction, as the
diameter continues to narrow, the
effects of wall shear stress generated on
each side of the tract converge, thereby
causing velocity to drop instantaneously
to zero (complete obstruction). (Click
image for larger version)
2D Cases
Initially, a 2D cross-sectional model was created (Figure 1) as a control. A Venturi with diameter
of 5 mm was used, and constriction was moderate (1.5 mm deep, 3 mm wide). The inlet edge
designated the velocity inlet and the outlet edge the pressure outlet; such would yield fluid flow in
the positive x direction with a specified velocity inlet. This model was then simulated in Fluent.
Figure 11. Velocity contours and

vectors of two-dimensional cross
section of healthy urethra, simulated in
(Fluent). Contours are shown for the
urethra as a whole (a) and magnified at
the bladder neck (b). Vectors are shown
for magnified region at the navicular
fossa and urethral orifice (c) to display
circulatory nature of flow. Blue
contours represent minimal (zero)
values, while red contours represent
maximal values of velocity. Trend
displays increased velocities in
narrower regions of the urethra, as
expected, with outlet velocity slightly
greater than at the inlet. (Click image
for larger version)
The effect of varying the horizontal distance between the two constrictions from Figure 1 was
initially observed by considering several cases of varying distance; for example, Figure 2 presents
the case in which the distance is 6 mm. The effect of constriction severity was also observed, with
mildly and severely constricted models; both constriction depth and width were considered.
Finally, the effect of multiple constrictions and varying distances between them was studied, as
shown in Figure 3.

dimensional cross sections of obstructed
cases of the ureter, simulated in
(Fluent). As shown, contours are
magnified at the outlets (ureterovesical
junction) for the cases of UPJ
constriction (a), constriction at the
abdomino-pelvic junction (b), and UVJ
constriction (c). Blue contours represent
velocity. Compared to the healthy
ureter, constricted cases displayed
decreased ureteral outflow, notable
especially in the cases of UPJ and UVJ
constriction. (Click image for larger
version)
3D Cases
To construct the 3D cases, each of the 2D models was rotated 360 degrees about its horizontal axis
of symmetry (y=2.5); Figure 4, for example, shows a 360-degree rotation of Figure 1. The 2D
cases of variable constriction severity, constriction multiplicity, and distance between
constrictions were rotated in a likewise fashion and simulated.

dimensional cross section of healthy
ureter, simulated in turbulent standard
k-epsilon solver (Fluent). Contours are
shown for the ureter as a whole (a), and
for magnified region at the
ureteropelvic junction (UPJ, inlet) (b)
and ureterovesical junction (UVJ,
outlet) (c). Blue contours represent
velocity. Trend indicates a steady
increase in urine velocity throughout
the ureter from the UPJ to the UVJ, due
to natural narrowing of the diameter.
Grid Independence Test

To ensure consistency in the models, it is important that a grid independence test be performed for
both 2D and 3D cases, as a finer grid yields greater accuracy. Such a test decreases the mesh
spacing to a point such that further decreasing the interval would have a negligible effect on the
outcome of a simulation while minimizing time and memory consumption. In the 2D case, a
triangular mesh was used with a symmetric Venturi, while in the 3D case, a tetrahedral mesh was
used. Mesh spacings of 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 were assayed with regard to velocity in the
turbulence model, and an interval spacing of 0.5 was ultimately selected for all 2D and 3D cases.
Figure 8. Flow characteristics in

(Fluent) for two-dimensional control
Venturi. Reynolds number was 5,000
based on inlet velocity, and constriction
was of moderate severity (1.5 mm deep,
3 mm wide). The effect of the
constriction on velocity, static pressure,
dynamic pressure, and total pressure
are shown by respective contour plots,
and are shown for comparison to fluid
dynamics of the same model in the
laminar solver (Re=700). Blue contours
represent minimal (zero) values, while
red contours represent maximal values.
As in the laminar solver, velocity and
dynamic pressure display maximal
values at site of constriction whereas
static pressure is at a minimum.
However, the non-symmetric
distribution of contours is a result of the
turbulent nature of the flow.
Underdeveloped flow may also
contribute to the observed distribution.
Realistic Models
In the realistic models, complete ureters and urethras were modeled. Both healthy and obstructed
models were created and compared to experimental data to assess accuracy. In Fluent, an inlet
velocity of 0.284 m/s (Re=2,826.409 for liquid water using Equation 6) was used for the ureter,
and 1.166 m/s (Re=9,556.400) was used for the urethra, based on realistic urine velocity data
obtained in humans (Hashimoto 1992). The standard k- model was used for all realistic
simulations.
Figure 7. Flow characteristics in

laminar solver (Fluent) for two-
dimensional control Venturi. Reynolds
number was 700 based on inlet velocity,
and constriction was of moderate
severity (1.5 mm deep, 3 mm wide). The
effect of the constriction on velocity,
static pressure, dynamic pressure, and
total pressure are shown by respective
contour plots. Blue contours represent
contours represent maximal values.
Velocity and dynamic pressure display
maximal values at site of constriction,
whereas static pressure is at a
minimum. Note that, despite the laminar
flow profile, contours appear to drift
upwards, possibly an effect of flow that
has not developed fully. (Click image
for larger version)
Ureter
A ureteral model was created from scaling an anatomical diagram (available at
http://www.uco.org.au/images/urology.swf, Urological Cancer Organisation) of the urinary
system; the scale ratio was measured to be 10:1. Additional anatomical information regarding
specific lengths, bends and diametric narrowings (Standring 2005) were used to establish
Cartesian coordinates to be plotted in Gambit (Table 1).
Figure 5. Two-
dimensional cross
sectional healthy model
of the ureter, created via
Coordinates were labeled
A1-G1 and A2-G2. Green
lines represent triangular
mesh (0.5 spacing,
determined by grid
independence test), blue
line designates velocity
inlet (ureteropelvic
junction, edge A1A2), and
red line designates
pressure outlet
(ureterovesical junction,
edge G1G2). Abdominal
and pelvic segments of
ureter connect at C1 and
C2. Non-uniform
Rational B-Splines were
used to connect ureter
walls, A1G1 and A2G2.
Model was subsequently
(Click image for larger
version)
Coordinates were labeled A1-G1 and A2-G2, as displayed in Table 1. Edge A1A2 was the
ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) and velocity inlet, and edge G1G2 was the ureterovesical junction
(UVJ) and pressure outlet. The abdominal ureter length spanned from A1A2 to C1C2, and the
pelvic ureter from C1C2 to G1G2. The coordinates were connected via non-uniform Rational B-
Splines (NURBS). All edges other than A1A2 and G1G2 were walls. A triangular mesh of 0.5
spacing was used to create the healthy 2D ureteral model (Figure 5).
Figure 6. Two-dimensional
cross sectional healthy model
of male urethra, created via
Coordinates were labeled A1
-R1 and A2-R2. Green lines
represent triangular mesh
(0.5 spacing, determined by
grid independence test), blue
line designates velocity inlet
(bladder neck, edge A1A2),
and red line designates
pressure outlet (urethral
orifice, edge R1R2).
Prostatic urethra conjoins
membranous urethra
between points G and H, and
membranous urethra
conjoins spongy (penile)
urethra at point H. Navicular
fossa is encompassed by
segment PR. Non-uniform
Rational B-Splines were used
to connect urethra walls,
A1R1 and A2R2. Model was
subsequently simulated in
Fluent. (Click image for
larger version)
3D
The 2D model could not be revolved 360 degrees about its center, as Gambit prohibits revolution
of faces about a twisted or scrunched edge. Instead, skin surfaces in the z-plane were created and
combined. The volume could not be meshed using a tetrahedral mesh, so a hexahedral mesh with a
Cooper meshing scheme and 0.5 spacing was used. Although the mesh was successfully exported
to Fluent, the grid check failed and immediate divergence was detected; the model could not be
Figure 4. Three-dimensional control

grid with symmetric constriction.
Venturi diameter was 5 mm and
constriction diameter was 1.5 mm deep
and 3 mm wide (moderate). Model was
created in Gambit by rotating respective
two-dimensional cross sectional grid
360 degrees about the horizontal line of
symmetry. Black lines represent
tetrahedral mesh, blue face designates
velocity inlet, and red face designates
pressure outlet. Model was subsequently
simulated in Fluent. (Click image for
larger version)
Obstructed Models
Three areas of the ureter are most susceptible to obstruction: the UPJ, UVJ, and the abdomino-
pelvic ureteral junction (Resnick and Sutherland 2004). For UPJ obstruction, segment A1A2 was
reduced to 1 mm; all other factors were held constant. For obstruction at the abdomino-pelvic
junction, C1C2 was reduced to 1 mm. For UVJ obstruction, G1G2 was reduced to 0.5 mm.

section of grid with variable distance
between constrictions, relative to
control case. Specifically shown, a
distance of 6 mm spans between two
moderate constrictions (1.5 mm deep, 3
mm wide). Green lines represent
triangular mesh, blue line designates
velocity inlet, and red line designates
pressure outlet. Model was created in
Gambit for subsequent simulation in
Fluent. (Click image for larger version)
Urethra
A urethral model was created from scaling a male urethra in a similar fashion as used for the
ureter (available at http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/figs/l44/440408.htm, SUNY
Downstate Medical Center); the scaled ratio was measured to be 20:17. As males are more
susceptible to urethral obstruction than females, only models of the male urethra were created.
Additional anatomical information regarding specific lengths, bends and diametric narrowing
(Standring 2005) was used to establish Cartesian coordinates to be plotted in Gambit (Table 2).
Each coordinate in the table was multiplied by 20/17 before plotting to account for the scale ratio.

section of grid with multiple
constrictions and variable distances
between them. The effects of both
constriction severity (depth, width) and
distance were assessed. Specifically
shown, two constrictions with a medium
spanning distance and moderate
constriction (1.5 mm deep, 3 mm wide).
subsequent simulation in Fluent (Click
Coordinates were labeled A1-R1 and A2-R2. Segment A1A2 was the bladder neck and velocity
inlet. The prostatic urethra spanned from A1A2 to the midpoint of segments G1G2 and H1H2.
The membranous urethra followed the prostatic for 15 mm, until segment H1H2. The spongy or
penile urethra spanned from H1H2 to P1P2 (bulbar from H1H2 to L1L2 and non-bulbar from
L1L2 to P1P2), and J1J2 represented the first angle or bend. P1P2 to R1R2 represented the
navicular fossa, and the urethral orifice (R1R2) was a pressure outlet. The coordinates were
connected via NURBS, and edges other than A1A2 and R1R2 were walls. A triangular mesh with
0.5 spacing was used to create the 2D healthy model (Figure 6).
Equation 1 (Click image for larger

version)
3D
Gambit prohibited a 360-degree revolution of the 2D model. An attempt was made to create a 3D
model in a similar fashion as in the ureteral model. However, creation of a skin surface in the z-
plane could not be completed. An attempt to create multiple volumes along the tract by revolving
individual segments by 360 degrees and subsequently merging them also failed. A 3D model was
unable to be created in Gambit using the employed methods.

version)
Obstructed Models
Three areas of the urethra are most susceptible to obstruction: the bladder neck, prostatic urethra
and first angle (bulbar spongy urethra) (Resnick and Sutherland 2004). 2D cross-sectional models
for each obstructed case were created and simulated.
For the obstructed bladder neck case, the inlet diameter was reduced to 0.5 mm. All other factors
were held constant. Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate cancer, or other diseases of the
prostate gland may cause constriction along the prostatic urethra. For this model, the diameter of
the prostatic urethra was reduced to 0.5 mm. Obstruction at the first angle occurs in the bulbar
portion of the spongy urethra. In the model of first angle obstruction, the bulbar penile urethra
diameter was reduced to 1 mm. All models were simulated.

version)
RESULTS
Hypothetical Models
In the hypothetical models, fluid dynamics were evaluated with regard to velocity, static pressure,
dynamic pressure, and total pressure. Path lines and contour plots indicated a decreased output of
urine in response to greater magnitudes of constriction. Figure 7 displays the flow characteristics
in the 2D cross-sectional control Venturi model with moderate constriction severity utilizing a
laminar solver (Reynolds value of 700). By comparison, Figure 8 displays flow characteristics in
the control model utilizing a turbulent solver (Reynolds value of 5,000). Numerical values of
velocity and pressure derived from these models, with particular focus on the flow at the inlet,
constricted, and outlet regions, are tabulated in Table 3. Values presented in Table 3 are
representative approximations based on contour plot scales.

version)
The data indicates similar trends between the laminar and turbulent solvers. In particular, greater
velocities and dynamic pressures were noted at constricted regions relative to those at the inlet
along with corresponding negative static pressures, as observed in Table 3. For example, in the
laminar solver, an inlet velocity of 0.141 m/s corresponds to a constriction velocity of 0.356 m/s,
approximately a 2.5-fold difference. Likewise, a constriction velocity of 2.40 m/s in the turbulent
solver corresponds to a 2.4-fold difference over the inlet velocity of 1.00 m/s, illustrating
similarity between the trends in the two solvers.

version)
Table 4 displays the effect of constriction severity on the control model for mild, moderate, and
severe cases of obstruction. The data illustrates a direct correlation between velocity, pressure
magnitudes, and constriction severity.
The effect of varying distances between constrictions in a doubly-constricted case (as in Figure 3)
displayed no significant effect on flow characteristics. Contours of velocity and pressure at the
corresponding regions of constriction were shown to be similar in the cases with a smaller gap
between constrictions and those with larger gaps. Furthermore, outlet flow conditions were similar
to those observed in the control case.

version)
Realistic Models
Ureter
In the realistic models, more emphasis was placed on contours of velocity, from which pressure
contours could be deduced. Figure 9 displays the velocity contours observed in the healthy
ureteral model, magnified at the inlet and outlet. Velocity increased steadily throughout the tract
from the UPJ to the UVJ. Figure 10 displays the velocity contours at the UVJ for the cases of UPJ,
abdomino-pelvic ureteral, and UVJ obstruction. Inlet and outlet velocities are tabulated for each
case in Table 5. Selected inlet values of 0.284 m/s converged in all cases.
The data demonstrates that all diseased states decreased ureteral outflow. In particular, whereas
the case of abdomino-pelvic ureteral constriction only slightly decreased outlet velocity, UPJ and
UVJ constriction had more profound effects.

version)
Urethra
Contours and vectors of velocity are shown for the healthy urethral model (Figure 11) with
magnifications at the bladder neck (inlet) and navicular fossa (outlet). An inlet velocity of 5.0 m/s
was specified in the healthy model for convergence of the solver. Corresponding velocity contours
in each of the obstructed cases at the sites of constriction—bladder neck constriction, BPH, and
bulbar spongy urethral constriction—are displayed in Figure 12. Inlet and outlet velocities are
tabulated in Table 6 for each case.
Table 6 indicates relatively higher outlet flow velocities in comparison to those at the inlets in all
cases except for bladder neck constriction. Additionally, only the case of bulbar spongy urethral
obstruction could converge at the anticipated 1.166 m/s inlet value. All other cases required a
higher inlet velocity specification in Fluent.

version)
DISCUSSION
A recent study (Martinez-Borges 2006) proposed turbulent urinary flow as a causal factor of BPH,
suggesting the necessity to conduct investigations of urethral fluid dynamics. Previous studies
have developed both quantitative and computerized models to assess the flow of urine in the lower
urinary tract. For example, Valentini et al. developed a computerized mathematical micturition
model capable of analyzing physiological changes during voiding (2000) and applied their model
to benign prostatic enlargement using pressure-flow analysis (2003). However, the Valentini-
Besson-Nelson model focuses more on physiological uroflow curve interpretation. Ohnishi et al.
evaluated theoretical possibilities of lower urinary tract simulation using a hydrodynamic model
(1991); similar quantitative studies regarding urodynamic models and pressure-flow analysis have
been suggested as well (Chamorro et al. 1998; Witjes et al. 2002; van Mastrigt and Kranse 1992;
Pel and van Mastrigt 2007), with slightly different objectives.

section of control grid with symmetric
constriction. Venturi diameter was 5
mm and constriction diameter was 1.5
mm deep and 3 mm wide (moderate).
subsequent simulation in Fluent. (Click
Hypothetical Models
Flow proved consistent with CFD equations and basic fluid flow theory. The Navier-Stokes
conservation of mass equation, Equation 2, explains the inverse relationship between velocity and
area, and hence why the velocity at constricted points was relatively greater than at the inlet. The
Navier-Stokes conservation of momentum equation, Equation 1, relates velocity and pressure, and
the Bernoulli equation, a simplification of the Navier-Stokes equations, further explains the static-
dynamic pressure relationships. The Newtonian quality of urine explains the direct relationship
between velocity and wall shear stress.
Figures 7 and 8 indicate that the flow was not symmetric despite symmetric geometry. This may
be a result of body force. Reversed flow was present in some models. The concept of fully
developed flow was considered for eliminating such flow, and Equations 7 and 8 were used to
determine the necessary entrance length for the flow to fully develop (210 mm inlet for Re=700
and 90.974 mm inlet for Re=5,000). The models were modified, and reversed flow was
eliminated.
The 3D cases were evaluated in a similar fashion as the 2D cases. Although slight differences
were noticed between 2D and 3D results, such differences were expected due to differences in the
equations used by the two Fluent solvers. 3D cases had also taken secondary flows into account.
Further, convergence in the laminar solver was restricted in most models for both Reynolds
values, possibly due to geometric complexity. All 3D models were simulated in the turbulence
solver, but results proved quite similar to those of the 2D models.
Realistic Models
Ureter
CFD equations accurately predicted the flow through the healthy and obstructed ureteral models
with regard to diametric changes, as illustrated by velocity contours in Figures 9 (a-c) and 10 (a-
c). Greater relative outlet and constriction velocities were observed and expected, due to the
natural diametric narrowing of the tract. Additionally, similarities between 2D and 3D
hypothetical model results indicate that the 2D ureteral models can accurately represent 3D cases
of the ureter that could not be simulated.
Interestingly, in UVJ obstruction (Figure 10 (c)), the velocity increased before the outlet until a
certain point, after which it became zero. The data indicates that the effect of wall shear stress,
initiated by the Newtonian property of urine, increased until a point at which the effect of the two
walls converged due to the severity of the constriction. Such suggests that, under the given
boundary and operating conditions, urine would be unable to flow beyond the point of obstruction
unless ureteral pressure is increased.
Urethra
In both the healthy and obstructed urethral models, flow was also predictable, based on velocity-
area relationships (greater velocity at the urethral orifice than at the bladder neck) and decreased
output from constriction, as seen in Figures 11 (a-c) and 12 (a-c). In the cases of bladder neck
obstruction and BPH, stagnant flow was observed, similar to the case of UVJ obstruction. Again,
this was caused by constriction severity and wall shear stress and can be eliminated by increasing
detrusor pressure. In the model of first-angle constriction, however, since the constriction was not
as severe, there was no stagnant flow under the simulated conditions.
Interesting results were obtained from varying inlet velocities in all models. In the healthy model,
a floating point error was detected at an inlet velocity of 1.166 m/s, and the solution did not
converge. Inlet velocity was varied and assayed at increasing integer quantities until convergence,
which occurred at 5 m/s (as in Figure 11). An inlet velocity of 4.5 m/s (Re=36,881.473) diverged,
but an inlet of 4.51 m/s (Re=36,963.432) converged, indicating a potential relationship between
Reynolds number, geometry, and convergence. Detrusor pressure possibly accounts for the higher
inlet velocity, as such would enable urine flow from inlet to outlet.
However, the solution also converged at inlet values less than 0.1 m/s. It is possible for
involuntary flow (leaks) to occur in incontinent patients, in which the flow velocity is typically
much less than in healthy patients, yet relative fluid dynamics remain consistent. Such is a
possibility for the lower inlet values. Varying the inlet velocity only affected the circulatory flow
within the navicular fossa, while flow throughout the rest of the urethra, including the orifice,
remained consistent. A Re-Normalization Group (RNG) k- solver would be better for circulatory
flow analysis than the standard k- model, as the RNG equations would more accurately model
swirling flow.
In the bladder neck obstruction and BPH models, even greater velocity inlets were required for
convergence, as expected. Interestingly, for the first-angle case, however, the flow converged at an
inlet of 1.166 m/s. A possible explanation is that in the healthy model, the bulbar urethral diameter
was so great that a greater Reynolds number was necessary for convergence, but in the first-angle
constriction case, since the diameter of the bulbar urethra was reduced, the Reynolds number
calculation was affected, yielding the possibility of convergence at 1.166 m/s. Supposedly, if a
more severe case of first-angle constriction were used, then an inlet of 1.166 m/s would not
converge. Theoretical analysis was assessed using CFD equations and flow theory; however,
further accuracy in a clinical setting can be evaluated by comparing Fluent results to experimental
uroflowmetry data.
Comparison to Experimental Data and Clinical Applications
Normal uroflow volume rates in men between 4 and 80 years of age range from 9 to 21 cm3/sec,
depending on age (Gilbert 2004). To calculate the outlet velocity in cm/sec, uroflow values were
divided by the cross sectional area of the outlet (in cm2). A urethral orifice radius of 0.088235 cm
was used in the healthy urethral model, yielding an orifice area of 0.024446 cm2. Realistic outlet
velocities hence range from 368.158 cm/sec (3.68 m/s) to 859.036 cm/sec (8.59 m/s) with the
given parameters. Figure 11 (c) indicates that an inlet velocity of 5 m/s yielded outlet velocities
between 6.91 and 16.9 m/s, which are slightly higher than predicted. This suggests that increasing
the diameter of the urethral models and decreasing the inlet velocity would yield more realistic
outlet values. Nonetheless, accurate modeling of the urinary tract with the given procedures is
restricted by variation in urinary tract parameters and in the urethral lumen diameter (wall
compliance).
Clinically, the CFD models may extend the current diagnostic potential of uroflowmetry tests by
incorporating such factors as static and dynamic pressure as well as velocity output. By analyzing
the differences in outlet flow values for each case of obstruction, the models can be used in
conjunction with current imaging techniques to potentially pinpoint the exact location and type of
urinary obstruction in patients. Additionally, each model can be varied to model patient-specific
urinary tract parameters for more precision in clinical applications.
Challenges and Limitations for Future Consideration
Indeed, several points of concern exist for future improvements. Additional experimental data
must be obtained for greater accuracy. For example, determining the density and viscosity of urine
would alter Reynolds number calculations and yield more realistic results. Further minimization of
truncation and discretization errors as well as reversed flow would even further improve accuracy.
Convergence difficulties in the laminar and turbulent solvers and difficulties in the grid
independence tests for very fine meshes still require further investigation. The chosen turbulent
solver (standard k- ) may be varied for additional accuracy; for example, use of the RNG k- solver
would provide greater precision in the analysis of swirling flows.
Creation of the models was based on a Cartesian approach in Gambit, which limits realistic
modeling, especially in the 3D cases. Urinary tract walls were also rigid in Fluent, whereas the
human urinary tract displays wall compliance. Programs other than Gambit and Fluent, such as
Amira and ADINA, respectively, are currently being investigated to simulate MRI’s and CT scans
of the tract using fluid-structure interaction (FSI). Such programs may present a drawback,
however, as MRI’s and CT scans do not typically cover the complete urinary tract and the
cropping and exportation processes would require numerous hours. Nonetheless such programs
would provide for more patient-specific variation in urinary tract parameters.
The present study analyzed the fluid dynamics of urine inside the urinary tract. The flow was
evaluated through constricted tubes, and attention was paid to the effects of such constriction and
to variable geometries and fluid properties. For the first time, CFD was applied to the urinary tract
as a whole to create a non-invasive diagnostic tool for urinary tract obstruction in both the ureter
and urethra. The models have implications for clinical applications of urinary tract analysis,
secondary flow effects, diagnosis, and possible disease prevention by early detection.
REFERENCES
Blackburn, HM and SJ Sherwin (2005) Three-dimensional instabilities and transition of steady

and pulsatile axisymmetric stenotic flows. J Fluid Mechanics 533(1), 297-327.
Chamorro, MV et al. (1998) Urodynamic models in the analysis of pressure-flow studies in the
adult male. Arch Esp Urol 51(10), 1011-1020.
Cummings, LJ et al. (2004) The effect of ureteric stents on urine flow: reflux. J Math Biol 49, 56-
82.
Elad, M and Y Hel-Or (2001) A Fast Super-Resolution Reconstruction Algorithm for Pure
Translational Motion and Common Space Invariant Blur. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(8), 1187-
1193.
Gilbert, SM (2004) Uroflometry. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. U.S. National Library of

Medicine, National Institutes of Health,
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003325.htm.
Hashimoto, T et al. (1992) Visualization of the intravesical urine stream. Hinyokika Kiyo 38(5),
531-534.
Jou, LD and SA Berger (2000) Flows in stenotic vessels. Ann Rev Fluid Mechanics 32, 347-382.
Jung, H et al. (2004) Asymmetric flows of non-Newtonian fluids in symmetric stenosed artery.
Korea-Australia Rheology Journal 16(2), 101-108.
Kim, SG et al. (1997) Limitations of Temporal Resolution in Functional MRI. Magn Reson Med
37(4), 631-636.
Lim, K et al. (1980) Analysis of mitral and aortic valve vibrations and their role in the production
of the first and second heart sounds. Phys Med Biol 25(4), 727-733.
Luo, XY et al. (2004) LES modelling of flow in a simple airway model. Medical Engineering and
Physics 26(5), 403-413.
Martinez-Borges, AR (2006) Turbulent urinary flow in the urethra could be a causal factor for
benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Hypotheses 67(4), 871-875.
Ohnishi, K et al. (1991) A study of the simulation model of the lower urinary tract for
urodynamics--(the first report)--theoretical evaluation of hydrodynamic model. Hinyokika Kiyo
37(10), 1249-1253.
Ooi, RC et al. (2004) The flow of bile in the human cystic duct. J Biomechanics 37, 1913–1922.
Pel, JJM and R van Mastrigt (2007) Development of a CFD urethral model to study flow-
generated vortices under different conditions of prostatic obstruction. Physiol Meas 28, 13-23.
Peled, S and H Yeshurun (2001) Superresolution in MRI: Application to Human White Matter
Fiber Tract Visualization by Diffusion Tensor Imaging. Magn Reson Med 45, 29-35.
Resnick, M and S Sutherland (2004) Urinary Tract Obstruction. eMedicine Clinical Knowledge
Base. WebMD, http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2782.htm.
RuDusky, BM (2003) Mechanical factors in the production of atheromatous disease with a
critique on antilipid therapy. Cardiovascular Engineering: An International Journal 3(1), 39-44.
Siouffi, M et al. (1998) Experimental analysis of unsteady flows through a stenosis. J

Biomechanics 31, 11-9.
Standring S. 2005. Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice, 39th ed. New
York: Churchill Livingstone. 1600 p.
Valentini, FA et al. (2000) A mathematical micturition model to restore simple flow recordings in
healthy and symptomatic individuals and enhance uroflow interpretation. Neurourol Urodyn 19
(2), 153-176.
Valentini, FA et al. (2003) Modelized analysis of pressure-flow studies of patients with lower
urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. Neurourol Urodyn 22(1), 45-53.
van Mastrigt, R and M Kranse (1992) Analysis of pressure-flow data in terms of computer-derived
urethral resistance parameters. World J Urol 13(1), 40-46.
Witjes, WP et al. (2002) Computerised assessment of maximum urinary flow: an efficient,

consistent, and valid approach. Eur Urol 41(2), 205-213.
Appendix: Governing Equations and Additional Formulas
Urine is a Newtonian fluid, one in which there is a simple, linear relationship between shear stress
and the velocity gradient. Viscous, incompressible Newtonian fluids are governed by the Navier-
Stokes equations (Equations 1, 2, and 3). In these equations, is the density, ui (i = 1,2,3) are the
three components of velocity, fi are body forces (such as gravity), p is the pressure, and is the
constant viscosity of the fluid. Such equations were applicable since the viscosity and density of
the working fluid were treated as a constant.
The standard k-epsilon (k- ) model was used for assessing turbulent flow. This model is
appropriate for fully-turbulent flows in which molecular viscosity is negligible. Two transport
equations (Equations 4 and 5) are involved in this model, from which turbulence kinetic energy, k,
and its dissipation rate, , can be obtained. In these equations, Gk is the generation of turbulence
kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients; Gb is the generation of turbulence kinetic
energy due to buoyancy; Ym represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in
compressible turbulence to ; C1 , C2 , and C3 are constants; K and are the turbulent Prandtl
numbers for k and , respectively; and SK and S are user-defined source terms. The solver was
chosen as it is the most practical and basic solver for engineering and CFD applications and
purposes.
The Reynolds number (Re), defined in Equation 6, is used to determine whether flow is laminar
(usually Re < 2,000 for an internal flow), turbulent (usually Re > 4,000 for an internal flow), or
transitional (2,000 less than or equal to Re which is less than or equal to 4,000). As Re is just an
approximation, determination of turbulence varies with other factors, such as geometric
complexity.
A flow must be fully-developed within a tube before a constricted area in order to ensure
accuracy. The formulas for the inlet length of a tube for full flow development are based on Re
(laminar or turbulent flow) and tube diameter, as shown in Equations 7 and 8.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Access to Fluent 6.1.22 and Gambit 2.1.6 provided by the CFD laboratory in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at Wayne State University is gratefully
acknowledged. Appreciation is given to mentors Joon Sang Lee, PhD (Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Wayne State University) and Ajay Kumar Singla, MD (Department of Urology,
Wayne State University) for their technical assistance throughout the duration of the present work.

CFD in Ventury Tube

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CFD in Ventury Tube

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFD in Ventury Tube

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Young Investigators :: JYI.

A Novel, Non-Invasive Approach to Diagnosing Urinary

Table 5. Measured inlet and outlet

Table 1. Cartesian coordinates used for

Figure 10. Velocity contours of two-

Figure 9. Velocity contours of two-

Figure 8. Flow characteristics in Figure 7. Flow characteristics in

Figure 4. Three-dimensional control

Figure 1. Two-dimensional cross

Table 6. Measured inlet and outlet

Table 5. Measured inlet and outlet

Table 4. The quantitative effect of

Table 1. Cartesian coordinates used for

Table 3. Numeric flow data for two-

Table 2. Cartesian coordinates used for

Figure 12. Velocity contours of two-

Figure 11. Velocity contours and

Figure 10. Velocity contours of two-

Figure 9. Velocity contours of two-

Grid Independence Test

Figure 8. Flow characteristics in

Figure 7. Flow characteristics in

Figure 4. Three-dimensional control

Figure 2. Two-dimensional cross

Figure 3. Two-dimensional cross

Equation 1 (Click image for larger

Equation 2 (Click image for larger

Equation 3 (Click image for larger

Equation 4 (Click image for larger

Equation 5 (Click image for larger

Equation 6 (Click image for larger

Equation 7 (Click image for larger

Equation 8 (Click image for larger

Figure 1. Two-dimensional cross

Comparison to Experimental Data and Clinical Applications

Challenges and Limitations for Future Consideration

Blackburn, HM and SJ Sherwin (2005) Three-dimensional instabilities and transition of steady

Gilbert, SM (2004) Uroflometry. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. U.S. National Library of

Siouffi, M et al. (1998) Experimental analysis of unsteady flows through a stenosis. J

Witjes, WP et al. (2002) Computerised assessment of maximum urinary flow: an efficient,

Appendix: Governing Equations and Additional Formulas

You might also like