Boundary Layer Separation Control in Y-intake duct

Adapter with Different Degree Roughness

Fatimah M. Mohsena,c , Dhragham A.Alkhafaji b,c

a faimahmalek@gmail.com, 07822086528

b d.alkafagiy@yahoo.com, 07800487756

c University of Babylon/collage of engineering/department of Mechanical Engineering.

Corresponding Author Email: faimahmalek@gmail.com, 07822086528

Abstract: despite the fact that enhancing duct performance is a primary goal in device design, there are various
elements that influence the device's efficiency during operation. The effects of a wide range of surface roughness on
stream flow and power loss inside a Y-intake duct adapter are investigated in this research. On a Y-intake Duct
Adapter, a complete program of 2D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling, as well as an extensive range
of experiments, were carried out to quantify performance degradation owing to surface roughness. Surface roughness
inside the duct has a crucial role in boundary layer separation, according to the findings. Surface roughness increases
turbulence and lowers the active fluid energy required for duct performance, lowering the duct's performance. Surface
roughness has a negative impact on the drag coefficient, pressure coefficient, which is evaluated. It is proven that a
duct with a roughness height of 375 𝜇𝑚 has a pressure coefficient of 20% greater than a smooth duct wall (zero
roughness height), and the greatest percentage of Error Calculation for the Validated Cases might be up to
7.22%Ks=375𝜇𝑚)and 6.98% (Ks=345 𝜇𝑚) and 7.028% (𝐾𝑠 = 250 𝜇𝑚) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 6.98% for case without roughness.
Keywords: Y-intake duct adapter; surface roughness; boundary layer separation; pressure coefficient.
1. Introduction
Separation of the turbulent boundary layer is one of the most important processes affecting the efficiency of flow
devices such as airplane wings, turbine and compressor blades, and curved ducts; their greatest efficiency is generally
around the commencement of separation. In these arrangements, reliable prediction of incipient detachment and
reattachment is crucial. During operating under high pressure and temperature settings, surface roughness increases
dramatically due to erosion, corrosion, and deposition. As a result, surface roughness has an impact on duct efficiency,
and the predicted life can be shortened. Since the 1930s, roughness has been tested [1-2]. The majority of the research,
on the other hand, has concentrated on equilibrium turbulent flows (flat-plate boundary layers, channels, pipes). The
interaction of roughness and pressure gradients, particularly unfavorable pressure gradients (APG) that produce
separation, is poorly understood. Roughness reduces the drag of bluff bodies at low Reynolds numbers by producing
early transition of the flow and so delaying separation, according to every textbook. In fully turbulent flows, roughness
has the opposite effect: separation occurs sooner when roughness is present [3-4]. In comparison to smooth-wall
boundary layers, how separation happens in rough-wall boundary layers is not well understood, and many problems
remain unresolved. Separating turbulent boundary layers over smooth and rough flat plates are studied by large-eddy
simulations [5-6], The roughness element also impacts the near-wall flow's intermittency, thus the flow can be reversed
half of the time upstream of the detachment point while maintaining a positive average velocity. In the rough-wall
example, the separated shear layer has a greater turbulent kinetic energy (TKE). The TKE grows faster there than it
does at the separation point, and the peak TKE occurs near the separation point. The roughness-induced momentum
deficit plays a key role in these alterations once again. As shown in Fig. 1,[7] flow control can be divided into two
branches: turbulence manipulation and laminar flow. In addition, there are two types of turbulence manipulation:
active and passive turbulent flow management. The goal of low control using sandpaper over a wind turbine airfoil
[8] was to see how the roughness of the sandpaper affected the low Reynolds flow over the NACA 4412 airfoil. To
determine where sandpaper should be placed on the airfoil and save money on experiments, First, a numerical analysis
was carried out at low Reynolds numbers ranging from 2.5× 104 to 1× 105 . The position of sandpaper was chosen as
15%- 25% chord length as a result of the numerical analysis, and roughness height (k) was also chosen as 0.5mm and
1mm (k is normalized as k/c throughout the rest of this study). The impact of surface roughness on turbulent boundary
layers has been investigated by many researchers. Acharya et al. [9] and Brzek et al. [10] showed that surface
roughness increases the friction coefficient (Cf) in zero pressure gradient (ZPG) boundary layers. For a rough surface,
the total drag was composed of the pressure drag on roughness elements and the friction drag on the surface [11,12].
The growth rates of the displacement thickness (d) and momentum thickness (h) increased as Cf was increased [9].

1
The pipe flow study of Nikuradse [1] and the ZPG plate boundary layer studies of Brzek et al. [10], Krogstad et al.
[13], and Krogstad and Antonia [14] all showed that roughness increases the normalized mean velocity defect (1-
𝑢⁄ ). Attention has also been paid to the favorable pressure gradient (FPG) effects on the smooth plate turbulent
𝑈 ∞
boundary layers [15]. The FPG decreased the mean velocity defect [16,17] and shape factor [16,18]. Joshi et al. [15]
𝜑
and Escudier et al. [18] showed that the FPG increases near the surface (y/𝛿<0.1 in Joshi et al. [15] and ⁄𝑣 <2000 in
Escudier et al. [16]) and decreases it in the outer region. According to a survey of the literature, there is a gap in our
understanding of the impact of surface roughness on duct performance. A detailed CFD simulation and a series of
laboratory experiments for a Y-intake duct were carried out in this study, covering a wide range of roughness values.
to determine the effects of roughness on the performance of the Y-intake duct adapter. The major purpose of this work
is to investigate the negative impacts of roughness on a duct using both numerical and experimental methods. The
numerical and experimental model results are presented and analyzed in the following sections.

Fig. 1. Various type of flow control utilization [7].

2. Numerical Modeling
2.1. Model Geometry
Some key parameters of Y-intake duct adapter are presented in Table 1. The air velocity was set at 4.5 m/s and height
of height and length of the duct were selected as 0.9 and 0.26 m, respectively
Table 1. Duct geometrical and stream specifications.

Height of the duct 0.15 m

Length of the duct 0.9 m
Width of the duct 0.26 m
Type of duct Y-intake duct adapter
Velocity of air 4.5 m/s

Figure 2 depicts the design of a Y-intake duct adapter in relation to air flow. The interaction of the Y-intake duct with
the air is complicated, and a number of parameters are required to fully analyze it.

2
 Figure 2. Schematic of the Y-intake duct adapter.

The choice of a proper computational domain is a critical aspect in ensuring that the CFD model is representational
of reality [19]. The domain should be adjusted to reduce computational run times while simultaneously providing
enough space for proper meshing. Furthermore, the CFD domain should be suitable for reproducing the duct without
the effects of the wall roughness. To analyze the performance of the duct, a 2D transient time-accurate and dynamic
mesh CFD model was developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics 5.5. geometry of the duct used that shown in
Figure 3. was design in COMSOL. Mesh generation was done in the COMSOL CFD software as shown in figure 4.
The angle in the duct was modelled with an unstructured mesh, whereas the rest of the domain was modelled with a
structured mesh. Table 2 shows the total number of cells in this simulation (after grid sensitivity study). To simulate
the problem, the RNG K-E turbulence model was employed, and the speed and pressure equations were coupled. At
the entrance, the air velocity was 4.5 m/s. The velocity intake was employed as the entry condition, while the pressure
outlet was used as the exit condition. The wall boundary condition was applied to the domain's bottom, top, and side
bounds. The simulation was run in transient mode, with a time step of 0.001s chosen after a time dependence test.

Figure 3. Computational domain.

3
 Figure 4. domain and intensive mesh on walls of the Y-intake duct adapter (using COMSOL Multiphysics)

Table (2) Grid independent test for Velocity and Roughness rate on surface [20].

Grid Domain Boundary Time (sec) 𝑈𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 |𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟|% 𝑈𝑎𝑡 50 𝑐𝑚 |𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟|%

elements elements
G1 2332 206 73 11.12 - 15.5 -
G2 6494 390 150 11.2 0.714 16.2 4.32
G3 17700 712 378 11.3 0.884 16.6 2.4
G4 19076 714 414 11.31 0.0 16.62 0.12
G5 28696 736 632 11.31 0.0 16.62 0.0

3. Experimental Setup
The separation of the duct's boundary layer was measured and examined using an experimental setup that was
designed and manufactured (Figure 5). A Perspex Y-intake duct adaptor with an air blower and honey comb was
created. A number of holes were drilled into the Y-intake duct for the purpose of measuring velocity. The distance
between each hole was determined, and the position of these holes was established in the duct's center. A pitot-static
tube linked to a manometer was used to measure the pressure change (figure 6 (a)).
The air blower's velocity can be adjusted. A model and a prototype of the Y-intake duct were created (figure 7
(b)) (in order to see the areas where the separation occurs by the smoke tunnel). To assess losses owing to surface
roughness, a comprehensive set of laboratory tests was devised and carried out. The studies were conducted with r
sandpapers of consistent roughness. The effects of surface roughness on flow and separation were investigated using
three different sandpapers with roughness values of (250, 345, 375, 500) 𝜇𝑚. In the following sections, the
experimental results will be given and compared to the CFD results.

4
 Figure 5. Measurement system for the Y-intake duct adapter.

(a) The Experimental Test Rig (b) The model inside the smoke tunnel
Figure 6. Experiments in fluid laboratory of University of Babylon.

4. Validation of the CFD Model

To test the validity of the CFD model, the experimental results and outcomes from some other studies from the
literature will be compared to the results of the CFD simulations of the Y-intake duct in this section. Pressure
Coefficient (Cp) was determined both experimentally and computationally along the length of a Y-shaped intake duct
for this purpose [21] can be used to compute the pressure coefficient:
𝑃 −𝑃𝑠𝑖
𝐶𝑃𝑅 = 1𝑠 2
(1)
𝑈𝑎𝑣𝑖
2

Figure 7 depicts the computed Cp values at various locations in the duct. The numerical results are in good
agreement with the experimental results, as can be shown. The overall trend of the current experimental and CFD
results is also comparable with some results on the performance of the Y-intake duct adapter reported in the literature.

5
 Figure 7. Pressure coefficient (CP) vs. length of Y-shaped intake duct for experimental validation of the computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) model.

5. Roughness Modeling Using the Modified Law of the Wall

The RNG model was developed using Re-Normalisation Group (RNG) methods [22]. It also takes the effective
viscosity in to account, meaning that another analytically derived differential formula accounts for low-Reynolds-
number effects. However, an appropriate treatment of the near-wall region has to be defined in order for this effect to
be accurately accounted for turbulent model [23]. The RNG model’s transport equations which are used in the Fluent
code are as follow [24]:
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜕𝑘
(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢𝑖 ) = [(𝜇 + 𝜎 𝑡 ) 𝜕𝑥 ] + 𝑃𝑘 − 𝜌𝜖 (2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑘 𝑖

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜕𝜖 ∗ 𝜖 𝜖2
(𝜌𝜖) + (𝜌𝜖𝑢𝑖 ) = [(𝜇 + 𝜎𝑡) 𝜕𝑥 ] + 𝐶1𝜖 𝑘 𝑃𝑘 − 𝐶2𝜖 𝜌 (3)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜖 𝑖 𝑘

The physics interfaces Wall and Interior Wall have an option to apply wall roughness by modifying the wall functions.
Cebeci (25) suggested a model which adjusts the friction velocity for surface roughness,
|𝑢|
𝑢𝜏 = 1 + +𝐵−∆𝐵
(4)
𝑙𝑛𝜎𝑤
𝑘𝑣
Where:

0 𝑘𝑠+ ≤ 2.25
1 𝑘𝑠+ −2.25
∆𝐵 = 𝑙𝑛 [ + 𝐶𝑠 𝑘𝑠+ ] sin[0.4258(𝑙𝑛𝑘𝑠+ − 0.811)] 2.25 ≤ 𝑘𝑠+ ≤ 90 (5)
𝑘𝑣 87.75
1
ln(1 + 𝐶𝑠 𝑘𝑠+ ) 𝑘𝑠+ ≥ 90
𝑘𝑣

𝑘𝑠+ , is the roughness height in viscous units,

⁄ 1
𝜌𝐶𝜇 4 √𝑘
𝑘𝑠+ = 𝑘𝑠 (6)
𝜇

6
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. Numerical Results
6.1.1. Surface Roughness Effects on Flow Pattern
The Y-intake duct adapter was simulated using the CFD model in six different average roughness heights (Ks) of
0, 250, 345, 375 𝜇𝑚 at velocity 4.5 m/s. The turbulence model should be established and validated, which is one of
the most significant components in roughness simulation. The RNG K-𝜀 model was utilized as the turbulence model,
and its capabilities for roughness impacts were proven by Sagol et al. [26] and Villalpand et al. [27]. The distribution
of velocity and velocity vectors can be useful in analyzing and understanding the phenomenon of flow over a structure
such as Y-intake ducts. Figures 8 show the results of the two-dimensional CFD analysis. The velocity distribution is
depicted as a cross-section to better comprehend the effect of roughness height on the flow . We select a reference
angle (45) and then simulate the duct setup with multiple roughness heights to provide a comparison between the duct
with different roughness heights. The duct with varying surface roughness heights can cause turbulence in the stream
flow, as can be shown. This turbulence can cause the boundary layer to separate and the stream flow to change as a
result of the turbulence. Fluid turbulence constantly lowers the kinetic energy, which lowers the overall duct
efficiency. The effects of roughness are insignificant at lower roughness heights (less than 250 𝜇𝑚), as may be
observed (see Figures 8). The velocity vectors of the fluid flow undergo a substantial leap at high roughness, which
has a significant impact on the fluid flow (particularly at roughness heights more than 375 𝜇𝑚). In the next sections,
this effect will be described and numerically measured.

Figure 8. velocity contours plots for 𝟒𝟓° intake models with different roughness rate.

7
6.1.2. Effects of skin friction coefficient (Cf) Friction Factor
The skin friction coefficients are sometimes based on experimental data for duct with various amounts of roughness.
In the present method, experimental results for turbulent duct are fit and combined with basic flow boundary layer
theory to produce the data in the figure below. the skin-friction coefficient, Cf, is shown as a function of Reynolds
number, Re. Results from the present study show that the skin-friction coefficient decreases as the Reynolds number,
Re, increases and it's also effected by degree of roughness shown in figure (9).

5.20E-03 A=1e-12 m
5.10E-03 A=0.001 m
5.00E-03 A=0.002 m
4.90E-03
4.80E-03
Cf

4.70E-03
4.60E-03
4.50E-03
4.40E-03
4.30E-03
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Reynolds Number

Figure 9. Relation between skin friction coefficient and Reynold Number

At high Reynolds number, the friction factor of rough duct becomes constant, dependent only on the duct roughness.
For smooth duct, shown that the friction factor influenced by the Reynold Number and roughness, and it is clearly
affected, from the experimental work found that the friction factor decreases as the Reynold Number increase as shown
in figure 10.

Figure 10. shows relation between Friction Factor and Reynold Number

8
6.2. Experimental with Numerical Results
The results of the laboratory experiments and numerical on the effects of surface roughness on the flow. Figure 11
shows the Y-intake duct adapter with three different surface roughness values created by sandpapers with different
surface roughness. The results are shown in Figure 11 show that the region of separation increases nonlinearly with
increase in the surface roughness.

Ks: 375 𝜇m

Ks: 345 𝜇m

Without sandpaper
Figure 11. Experimental and Numerical cases with different roughness values.

9
 7. Validation
7.1 Comparison of streamlines between (S. Thangam and C.G. Spezialet 1991) [29], and present study.
Analysis is performed for different for the mean velocity streamlines, the streamwise mean velocity profiles, the
streamwise turbulence intensity profiles and the turbulence shear stress profiles.
Study Stream lines
Thangam and
Speziale [79]

Present study

Figure 12. Validation of boundary layer thickness of present work vs. S. Thangam and C.G. Spezialet 1991) [29]

10
7.2 Validation between experimental and numerical study
Figure 13. show the validation between the experimental results and the numerical results (CFD) inside the Y-intake
duct adapter with different degree of surface roughness. The validation of the CFD data was carried out with different
velocities 4.5 (m / s), 5.5 (m / s), 6.5 (m / s), 7.5 (m / s) and different roughness height values (0, 250 𝜇𝑚, 345
𝜇𝑚, 375 𝜇𝑚). A comparison of general data shows a consensus between numerical and experimental results.

Figure 13. Validation of the velocity profile at different roughness Height.

8. Conclusions
An experimental and CFD examination of the impact of surface roughness on the performance of a Y-intake duct
adapter was reported in this paper. It was discovered that surface roughness is an important aspect to consider when
constructing a duct, and that it should be regarded as an early design parameter along with duct size, air velocity, and
duct shape. The duct performance decreases as the roughness of the Y-intake duct increases. The impacts of roughness
on stream flow and duct performance were quantified using CFD models. Experiments were also conducted on
physical models of Y-intake with four different roughness heights. The following are some of the inferences that may
be derived from the findings of this study:
(1) Velocity distributions show that turbulence will increase with increasing the surface roughness of Y-intake duct.
Turbulence reduces the kinetic energy which in turn, reduces the total duct efficiency.
(2) The surface roughness degrades the margin of pressure coefficient, especially at high values of roughness.
(3) The pressure cofficient increases as the roughness decrease, the pressure coefficient is very sensitive to the
variations of Ks. The pressure coefficient of roughed duct (with Ks = 375 μm) studied in this paper was 20% higher
than the smooth duct.
)4) At high intake velocities, the negative impact of surface roughness is substantially stronger (i.e., high Reynold
numbers). Except for the air velocity, all parameters in the Re equation were constant in the CFD simulation.
Roughness has been found to have substantially bigger detrimental effects at high Reynolds numbers.

11
(5) The duct's performance is affected by an increase in separation caused by surface roughness and the greatest
percentage of Error Calculation For the Validated Cases might be up to 7.22% (Ks=375 𝜇𝑚 ) and
6.98% (Ks=345 𝜇𝑚) and 7.028% (𝐾𝑠 = 250 𝜇𝑚) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 6.98% for case without roughness.
(6) The results of this study will help manufacturers and operators of Y-intake duct adapters in making decisions on
practical steps (e.g., duct coating or cleaning) to reduce duct roughness.
References
[1] NIKURADSE, J. 1933 Laws of flow in rough pipes (in German). VDI Forsch. 361 (translation in NACA Tech.
Rep. 1292, 1950).
[2] COLEBROOK, C. F. 1939 Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular reference to the transition region between the
smooth and rough pipe laws. J. Inst. Civil Engrs 11 (4), 133–156.
[3] SONG, S. & EATON, J. K. 2002 The effects of wall roughness on the separated flow over a smoothly contoured
ramp. Exp. Fluid 22, 38–46.
[4] AUBERTINE, C. D., EATON, J. K. & SONG, S. 2004 Parameters controlling roughness effects in a separating
boundary layer. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 25 (3), 444–450.

[5] Wu, W., & Piomelli, U. (2018). Effects of surface roughness on a separating turbulent boundary layer. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 841, 552–580.
[6] Husain, N. T., Hara, T., Buckley, M. P., Yousefi, K., Veron, F., & Sullivan, P. P. (2019). Boundary layer
turbulenceover surface waves in a strongly forced condition: LES and observation. Journal of Physical
Oceanography, 49(8), 1997–2015.
[7] Serdar GENÇ, M., KOCA, K., & AÇIKEL, H. H. (2019). Investigation of pre-stall flow control on wind turbine
blade airfoil using roughness element. Energy, 176, 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.179
[8] Koca K. The flow control with roughness devices over wind turbine airfoil. MSc Thesis. Kayseri, Turkey: Graduate
School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Erciyes University; 2016.

[9] Acharya, M., Bornstein, J., and Escudier, M. P., 1986, “Turbulent Boundary Layers on Rough Surfaces,” Exp.
Fluids, 4, pp. 33–47.

[10] Brzek, B., Cal, R. B., Johansson, T. G., and Castillo, L., 2007, “Inner and Outer Scalings in Rough Surface Zero
Pressure Gradient Turbulent Boundary Layers,” Phys. Fluids, 19, p. 065101.

[11] Furuya, Y., Miyata, M., and Fujita, H., 1976, “Turbulent Boundary Layer and Flow Resistance on Plates
Roughened by Wires,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 98, pp. 635–643.

[12] Leonardi, S., Orlandi, P., and Antonia, R. A., 2007, “Properties of d- and k-Type Roughness in a Turbulent
Channel Flow,” Phys. Fluids, 19, p. 125101.

[13] Krogstad, P. -A° ., Antonia, R. A., and Browne, W. B., 1992, “Comparison Between Rough- and Smooth-Wall
Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 245, pp. 599–617.

[14] Krogstad, P.- A ° . and Antonia, R. A., 1999, “Surface Roughness Effects in Turbulent Boundary Layers,” Exp.
Fluids, 27, pp. 450–460.

[15] Joshi, P., Liu, X., and Katz, J., 2011, “Turbulence in Accelerating Boundary Layers,” ASME-JSME-KSME Joint
Fluids Engineering Conference 2011, Hamamatsu, Japan, July 24–29.

[16] Escudier, M. P., Abdel-Hameed, A., Johnson, M. W., and Sutcliffe, C. J., 1998, “Laminarisation and Re-
Transition of a Turbulent Boundary Layer Subjected to Favorable Pressure Gradient,” Exp. Fluids, 25, pp. 491–502.

12
[17] Herring, H. J. and Norbury, J. F., 1967, “Some Experiments on Equilibrium Turbulent Boundary Layers in
Favorable Pressure Gradients,” J. Fluid Mech., 27, pp. 541–549.
[18] Piomelli, U., Balaras, E., and Pascarelli, A., 2000, “Turbulent Structures in Accelerating Boundary Layers,” J.
Turbul., 1, pp. 1–16.

[19] Lanzafame, R.; Mauro, S.; Messina, M.Wind turbine CFD modeling using a correlation-based transitional
model. Renew. Energy 2013, 52, 31–39.

[20] Fatimah M. Mohsen, Hameed k. Hamzah, Dhragham A.Alkhafaji (2021). CFD Based Investigation of Boundary
Layer Separation Control for Y-intake Duct Adapter by Various Degrees of Height Roughness. Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Research and Developments ISSN: 1024-1752 CODEN: JERDFO Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 371-382 Published
Year 2021

[21] Jessam, R. A., Al-Kayiem, H. H., & Nasif, M. S. (2018). Experimental and numerical analysis of different flow
modifier on the reversal flow region in s-shaped aggressive diffuser. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2035, 1–8.

[22] Yakhot, V., Orszag, S.A., Thangam, S., Gatski, T.B. & Speziale, C.G. (1992), "Development of turbulence
models for shear flows by a double expansion technique", Physics of Fluids A, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp1510-1520.

[23] Martin Länsmans, Anders Ramqvist. Computational fluid dynamics study of the spillway and plunge pool at
Baihetan hydropower station. KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management Energy Technology
EGI_2017-0053 EKV1194 Division of Heat and Power Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM.

[24] William, T. V. (2017). CFD Module User ’s Guide. CFD Module User’s Guide, 1–710.
https://doc.comsol.com/5.3/doc/com.comsol.help.cfd/CFDModuleUsersGuide.pdf
[25] T. Cebeci, Analysis of Turbulent Flows, 2nd ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004.

[26] 44. Sagol, E.; Reggio, M.; Ilinca, A. Issues concerning roughness on wind turbine blades. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2013, 23, 514–525.

[27] Villalpando, F.; Reggio, M.; Ilinca, A. Numerical study of flow around iced wind turbine airfoil. Eng. Appl.
Comput. Fluid Mech. 2012, 6, 39–45.

[29] Thangam, S., & Speziale, C. G. (1992). Turbulent flow past a backward-facing step-A critical evaluation of two-
equation models. AIAA journal, 30(5), 1314-1320.

13