ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Experimental Validation of Large Eddy Simulation as a Benchmark for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Flow Modeling in a Magnetically Levitated Blood Pump.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experimental Validation of Large Eddy Simulation as a Benchmark for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Flow Modeling in a Magnetically Levitated Blood Pump.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study investigates the potential of large eddy simulation (LES) as a benchmark for validating Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models in the CentriMag centrifugal blood pump. We compare velocity field predictions from LES and RANS against particle image velocimetry (PIV) and quantify previously unreported non-rotatory components in the motion of the magnetically levitated impeller, assessing their impact on flow dynamics.
methodsWe performed PIV on an optically accessible pump replica and compared phase-averaged velocity fields with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions from LES and three unsteady RANS models. In addition, using custom optical trackers embedded in the PIV setup, we quantified the three-dimensional impeller motion and replicated its main non-rotatory components in the simulations.
resultsThe impeller exhibited complex but small deviations from ideal rotation. When incorporated into the CFD model, these had negligible impact on the flow field. LES predictions agreed well with PIV data, with root-mean-square velocity errors of approximately 3%, while the RANS models showed larger local deviations, particularly in the outlet region.
conclusionLES demonstrated close agreement with PIV and proved to be a reliable reference for validating RANS models in this study. Although the analysis was limited to a single pump, LES warrants further consideration as a potential benchmark method that could reduce reliance on extensive experimental flow validation. Consistent with previous findings, the transition from the volute to the outlet emerged as a particularly sensitive region for RANS modeling and validation. The quantified non-rotatory impeller motion had negligible impact on the flow field, supporting the continued use of idealized rotor motion in CFD modeling of similar magnetically levitated devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.