Meeting 1: Week 2, Wednesday 15th October

Attendees: Mark, Callum, Ross, Karen, Hang, Masuya, Otomo

Discussion:

Delegation of Tasks: it was decided that the group would be split in two,
4 people working on the Phantom and 3 people working on the CFD
model.
CFD Team
Callum
Ross
Masuya

Phantom Team
Karen
Mark
Hang
Otomo

Geometry: a decision needs to be made on how to define the geometry

for the phantom and CFD models. Everyone instructed to research papers
to investigate how geometry has been defined in the past. Another
meeting to be held on Tuesday 21st October at 10am (phantom group) to
discuss our findings and full group will report work from past week to
Amaya-Sensei at 4pm on Tuesday 21st October.
Gantt Chart: Gantt chart must be roughly completed in order to show
Amaya-Sensei on Tuesday to gain confidence in plan. Karen to attempt to
fill in deadlines and upload to dropbox by Monday night, group to discuss
before meeting with Amaya on Tuesday.
Timeline: the subject of how long each stage of the project would take
was discussed. It was determined that the project would be front-end
loaded therefore the initial stages would consume the most time. A rough
estimate of completion of Phantom and CFX model by week 6/7 was
suggested this is subject to change.
CFX: It was decided the CFX team would spend the week helping to
investigate geometry with phantom team. In addition to this a decision
was made to possibly practice with an Internet model of a lung whilst
the phantom design is being finalised. This way the team can get
experience in the software and begin to understand how to apply FOT to
the model. Once the phantom design is finalised and under construction
the CFX team can make an exact replica of the geometry and use the skills
already learned from the Internet model to set boundary conditions,
apply FOT, etc.

Discussion from Meeting with Amaya (Tuesday 14th October):

Goals Defined: See statement of purpose

Stiffness: Research voice analysis papers, get information on stiffness of
trachea to understand how to model accurately in CFX
Hours for each Member: It was discussed that the Tokyo Tech students
were able to commit to 1 hour per day to the project. The Strathclyde

students can commit to the project 4/5 days a week (with 3 hours per
week dedicated to Japanese language class)
COPD/Asthma difference: investigate difference between COPD and
asthma so the differences can be modelled and results compared.
CFX Software: ANSYS CFX will be used for the project.

Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 21st October 10am (phantom team), 4.30pm (all
members + Amaya-Sensei)

Meeting 2: Week 3, Monday 20th October

Attendees: Karen, Callum and Ross
Discussion:
Project Plan: The plan decided last week was discussed further to ensure
members were clear on the plan. It was decided that at the next meeting
with Amaya-Sensei (Tuesday 21st October) the project plan should be rediscussed to determine whether the modelling of asthma/COPD should be
included in the Phantom model. This would mean the phantom and
response could be tested using FOT and then compared to the CFX model.
Once this has been confirmed the Gantt Chart can be updated.
Interim Report (Strathclyde): It was decided that the report should be
written this week, with the 4 members from Strathclyde splitting the
sections at the next meeting. Each member should have their section
completed by Wednesday 29th October to allow 2 days for formatting and
compiling each section together.
CFD model: The idea last week for the CFD team to move forward with an
Internet model of airways was discussed and it was decided to change
this. The CFD team will now work on creating the simple geometry in
Solidworks with the aim to import into CFX software to begin to apply
boundary conditions by the end of week 3.
Phantom: The phantom team are to meet on Tuesday 21st to discuss
findings. This meeting summarised some ideas so far and 3D printing of
the phantom was suggested to be the quickest/most effective method for
manufacture. Reports have been found for stiffness of the trachea and this
should be discussed with the CFD team to ensure the phantom is an
accurate representation of the CFD model and its properties.
Actions:
Callum: Model simple geometry in Solidworks, investigate boundary
conditions
Ross: Matlab investigate coupling between 3D-1D-0D
Karen: Investigate 3D printing options, find out about website design
Everyone: Focus on learning more about geometry and the different
models available. Also research Asthma and COPD and get ideas of how
to model these in both the Phantom and the CFD model.
Questions for Amaya-Sensei:
Project Plan: Ask if it could be possible to model asthma and COPD in
simple model to allow the phantom to be tested with the 2 conditions and
be compared to the computer model.
Phantom: How to model the 1D-0D sections of the lung. For example
could a balloon type structure be used, with a resistance similar to that of
the lower bronchi?
Gant Chart: Ask about time line of project, see if we are on the right
tracks with completion of Phantom at week 6/7.
Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 21st October (11am and 4.30pm)

Meeting 3+4: Week 3, Tuesday 21st October/Wednesday 22nd October

Attendees: Callum, Ross, Mark, Karen, Hang, Otomo, Masuya, Amaya-Sensei
Discussion:

Timeline: Amaya-Sensei suggested a visit to the hospital to see the FOT

machine in the 1st week of November (week 5), with the aim of having a
phantom manufactured and ready to test by 2nd or 3rd week in November.
(week 6/7)
1D Verification: The project goals were altered since the last meeting. It
was decided that a verification of where it is acceptable to assume a 1D
solution is required. This will be completed using 3D modelling (CFD) and
3D-1D modelling (CFD and Matlab). This verification will determin the
diameter at which it is acceptable to assume a 1D solution.
Stiffness: It was decided that applying stiffness to a CFX model must be
investigated and determined whether or not it is manageable. If yes: 3D
model to incorporate stiffness and be compared to 3D-1D model to
determine whether or not the 3D-1D assumption may be used in
conjunction with stiffness.
Phantom: A design of a phantom has been suggested which would be
used for experiments using an FOT machine in hospital. The phantom
would model all generations of a lung in a simplified manner 1 straight
tube with varying hole diamters and lengths to correspond to the Wiebel
model.
Number of Generations to Model: There was discussion around how
many generations to model in 3D for verification purposes. This must be
discussed further to determine a final decision should be decided before
next meeting with Amaya-Sensei.

Actions (by next meeting)

Preliminary Design of Phantom: Karen/Mark

Investigate 1D modelling: Ross
Investigate 3D printing options (materials/time to manufacture):
Hang/Otomo
3D Modelling for verification: Callum/Masuya
Complete summary of verification strategy: All members to
contriubute

Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 28th October (4.30pm)

Meeting 5: Week 4, Tuesday 28th October

Attendees: Callum, Ross, Mark, Karen, Hang, Otomo, Masuya, Amaya-Sensei
Discussion:

Mid-Project Presentation: Team must prepare and present a 7 minute

presentation on the 5th November to 40 students. There will be 8 mins
discussion after the presentation. Presentation must incude: goals,
approach to problem, schedule and team roles (delegation).
Strategy: To kick off the meeting the verification strategy was discussed.
The plan was presented and some issues were raised: stiffness
incorporation could prove difficult Masuya and Callum to look into this.
Amaya-Sensei suggested first stage should just be rigid, then stage 1.1 to
incorporate stiffness (IF it is discovered to be possible within the time
frame). Verification Strategy document updated in Dropbox.
1D Assumption: Ross described how the 1D assumption works and aims
to have first stage completed by next meeting. Ross to remember to share
problems with the group if he comes across them.
Phantom: phantom team described design using hand drawing. The cross
sectional area relationship was discussed and Amaya-Sensei suggested to
consider making generations 14-23 using 1 single module of equivalent
impedance. This impedance would be calculated from the 1D assumption.
This is an option that will be explored further if there is time remaining.
Back-up Plan: Issue was raised as to what the project goal would be
changed to if the stiffness + fluid simulation cannot be achieved within the
time frame. No clear answer was determined however this is an area
which required extensive work therefore if problems are encountered
they must be rasied quickly to ensure another route for 3D-1D simulation
can be taken. Another issue was what to do if the 3D to 1D comparison
did not give good results.

Actions for Next Meeting

Hang & Otomo: Research 3D printing accuracy, cost, materials avaialable
and time.
Callum & Masuya: Investigate capabilities in CFX and Subami to couple
structural + fluid simulation. Aim to have 1st stage of verification (without
stiffness) by next meeting.
Ross: Generate 1st stage 1D model and investigate method to couple to 3D
model.
Mark & Karen: Finalise phantom design. Must research materials
available for large hole numbers (filters) and generate Reynolds number
table to determine areas of turbulence.
All: Prepare presentation material and show Amaya-Sensei prior to
presentation on the 5th. Determine who will present.
Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 4th November, 4.30pm

Meeting 6: Week 5, Tuesday 4th November

Attendees: Callum, Ross, Mark, Karen, Hang, Otomo, Amaya-Sensei
Discussion:

Mid-Project Presentation: The presentation was shown to AmayaSensei and a few parts were highlighted as needing further work. It was
suggested the introduction should be split up into background, current
problems and our project purpose with one slide for each. The set up for
FOT also needed a single slide for description of how it works.
Phantom Design: The team presented the new phantom design to use
16 small tubes and 3D print them all in order to split the airflow between
most of the holes. This was discussed and costs calculated and it was
decided this design would be too expensive and time consuming to
complete before the end of the project. It was then decided that the top
part of the phantom could be 3D printed (up until the generation at which
the 1D assumption becomes valid) and then the remaining generations
could be modelled using a membrane with stiffness properties to match
the impedance from the 1D mathematical model.
3D/1D: both teams still progressing with modelling and simulating the
first stage of verification. Ross is requested to ask for help whenever he
needs it, and all team members should be aware he may need assistance
and to help him when he does.
Hospital Visit: The team will travel to the hospital on Friday to see the
facilities for testing the phantom. The team should be prepared to answer
questions the hospital staff may have and to present the project purpose.

Actions for Next Meeting

All: Fix presentation and present project so far to 40 students on
Wednesday at 13.20.
All: Present project to hospital staff and write up findings for next
meeting.
Callum/Ross/Masuya: Continue to simulate the rigid weibel tube to
determine where the 1D assumption becomes valid. Investigate the Fluid
structural interaction for the 2nd stage.
Mark/Karen/Hang/Otomo: Prepare strategy for new phantom design.
Research Impedance and how to translate an impedance value into
stiffness properties so a membrane material may be selected. Begin to
make an estimate for impedance using particle deposition paper formula.
Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 11th November, 4.30pm

Meeting 7: Week 6, Tuesday 11th November

Attendees: Callum, Ross, Mark, Karen, Hang, Otomo, Masuya, Amaya-Sensei
Discussion:
Complexity of current task: The group raised concerns that the full plan
for the project may be too difficult for the short amount of time that
remains for the project (approx. 1 month). There was then a large
discussion on the achievability of the 1D model, the purpose of the
phantom and the connection between the different parts of the project.
The 3D CFD was determined to be going well, therefore this was not
raised as a concern
1D Model: Ross and Amaya-Sensei discussed the 1D model in detail and
it was decided by the team that the full 1D-3D coupled model could not be
realised within the time frame. This decision then drove the new goal to
be set of just a 1D model of the tapered Wiebel tube to determine where a
1D assumption would become valid. This was determined to be possible
and still a good outcome for the project. The 1D tube could be compared
to the same 3D CFD tube and this would provide a result that either the
1D assumption is valid or not valid.
Phantom: The team raised the issue that the static model did not seem
like it was providing any useful purpose for the project. The static model
would simply test that the impedance calculation using the perforated
plate with holes formula was correct, which in itself was not useful. A
discussion was had and ideas suggested for dynamic phantoms. The new
dynamic phantom would consist of a single tube with membrane and
piston. The piston would move up and down creating tidal breathing
simulation. This dynamic phantom could be tested using an FOT machine.
The impedance would still be measured and the results compared to both
a 3D model of the same phantom and also patient results. This dynamic
phantom and 3D model would provide a verification that a physical model
of a lung using a lumped impedance value is valid. This would be a useful
result and would provide information which could be used in the future
to create a more complicated and realistic phantom.
3D: The 3D models would consist of one model which is the same as the
phantom single tube with membrane and tidal breathing undergoing
FOT. The second model would be a tapered Wiebel tube to match the 1D
mathematical model. The 3D tapered tube could include stiffness (if it is
found to be possible) however if not possible then the 1D model would be
altered to increase the beta value to allow a rigid assumption.
Actions:
Someone: Summarise the new strategy for verification of phantom
and 1D/3D models table or diagrams and text might be useful
Phantom: Research materials to be used for membrane, understand
perforated hole formula and how to apply this to different membranes,
research methods to manufacture new phantom with piston and how to
attach to FOT machine

1D: continue with mathematical model of single tapered Wiebel tube, ask
for help as necessary
3D CFD: model single tube with piston and investigate capability of
including stiffness in single tapered Wiebel tube to compare to 1D.

Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 18th November, 4.30pm

Meeting 8: Week 7, Tuesday 18th November

Attendees: Callum, Ross, Mark, Karen, Otomo
Discussion:
Connection between goals: The group began by discussing the
connection between each of the tasks: phantom, 1D model and 3D models.
It was concluded that although each goal has a purpose under the broad
banner of lung modelling it became hard to connect them after this. Each
part of the project was then discussed and goals re-clarified to ensure all
group members were on the same page.
Clarification of Goals: It was decided that the 1D model (single Wiebel
tube) comparison to a 3D model of the same stiffness etc was a
comparison on whether 1D modelling can be applied to these
generations. The next step for this would be to create a branched model
and compare to 3D (this may happen within this project depending on
time constraints). Another 3D model could also be created which uses a
branched geometry from generations 1-5 then a lumped impedance
model for generations 5-21. This would be the first step in creating a 1D3D model. This step illustrates the possibility of using a 1D-3D coupled
model for disease classification. In addition to computer modelling we
also have a phantom model. This model shall demonstrate a new, novel
design for a dynamic lung phantom. The experiments shall consist of
membrane testing to determine a potential method for selecting
membranes with similar impedance to the lung. The phantom will be
compared to real patient results to determine whether the output is
similar. If so then this would be the beginning of a new way to
dynamically model a lung with various impedances.
Current problems: Each sub team fed back information on their current
status to the group. Callum had applied stiffness to the Wiebel tube and
was ready to begin generating results this week. Ross shared a problem
with 1D assumption with the group (re: matrix derivatives, Fu term) and
estimated the tube could be finished during the 1st week of December.
The phantom team explained the experiment strategy and the goal to
order materials this week to commence manufacture in week 8.
Actions:
Karen/Mark/Otomo: Order/purchase materials to create phantom, be
ready to test phantom at hospital in week 9 (1st week of December).
Finalise experiment strategy, what conclusions are to be drawn.
Ross: Model 1D Wiebel tube, have results by end of week 9 (1st week of
December)
Callum: Continue modelling tube and begin to model branched with
impedance if time, also once phantom is made (week 9) a cfd model of the
phantom may also be created to simulate FOT in CFD.
Someone: Look into setting up a website for the project
Next Meeting Date: Tuesday 25th November, 4.30pm