Analysis shows differing performance of turbulence models in exhaled jet flow, indicating new insights into airflow dynamics in indoor settings.
Accurate modeling of exhalation dynamics is essential in estimating infection rates. In this study, we analyzed the predictive capabilities of three Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS)-based turbulence models: Realizable k–ε, renormalization group (RNG) k–ε, and shear-stress transport (SST) k–ω for sinusoidal exhalation. The exhaled jet flow extends over a distance from the exhalation source, normalized by the exhalation source diameter, and was analyzed across the jet region. Furthermore, this region was divided into three sub-regions: near-field, transitional, and fully developed field for turbulence evaluation. These models were validated against time-resolved particle image velocimetry data and empirical measurements under quiescent ventilation conditions. Results from the centerline velocity decay profiles demonstrated that each model exhibited performance across the sub-regions of the exhaled jet. Using three performance metrics for quantitative validation, the RNG k–ε model demonstrated superior performance overall across the jet flow region. When sectioned into sub-regions, its performance is better in transitional and fully developed regions due to its enhanced strain-term formulation. Meanwhile, the SST k–ω model provides superior accuracy in near-wall shear and boundary–layer interactions. The Realizable k–ε model performs well in the transitional region but underperforms in the near-field and fully developed regions. These results advance the characterization of breath-generated flows, providing insights into airborne transmission dynamics that can inform the optimization of ventilation strategies and mitigation measures in indoor environments. Semi-empirical equations, derived using the best-performing region-specific URANS models, estimate centerline velocities during exhalation (0 < t < 2 s) in developed field regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Owolabi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: