Core-annular flow through a horizontal pipe: hydrodynamic counterbalancing of buoyancy force on core

A theoretical investigation has been made of core-annular flow: the flow of a high-viscosity liquid core surrounded by a low-viscosity liquid annular layer through a horizontal pipe. Special attention is paid to the question of how the buoyancy force on the core, caused by a density difference between the core and the annular layer, is counterbalanced. From earlier studies it is known that at the interface between the annular layer and the core waves are present that move with respect to the pipe wall. In the present study the core is assumed to consist of a solid center surrounded by a high-viscosity liquid layer. Using hydrodynamic lubrication theory taking into account the flow in the low-viscosity liquid annular layer and in the high-viscosity liquid core layer the development of the interfacial waves is calculated. They generate pressure variations in the core layer and annular layer that can cause a net force on the core. Steady eccentric core-annular flow is found to be possible

Communicating flood risk to the public by cartography

Flood risk communication plays an important role in risk management, because it can strengthen people’s risk awareness and can motivate them to take precautionary actions. To inform the public about flood risks, the use of flood maps is encouraged by the recent EU Flood Directive (2007/60/EC). Mapping flood risks deals with the challenges of representing risks in a way people can understand and interpret them correctly. In this contribution, the use of flood maps is discussed within risk communication. Attention is further given to the cartographic principles of flood mapping and to the role of the Internet in communicating flood risks via web cartography. Eventually, the state of the flood risk mapping in Flanders (Belgium) is discussed, considering the theoretical aspects previously handled

Insights in a restricted temporary pacemaker strategy in a lean transcatheter aortic valve implantation program

OBJECTIVES: To study the safety and feasibility of a restrictive temporary‐RV‐pacemaker use and to evaluate the need for temporary pacemaker insertion for failed left ventricular (LV) pacing ability (no ventricular capture) or occurrence of high‐degree AV‐blocks mandating continuous pacing. BACKGROUND: Ventricular pacing remains an essential part of contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A temporary‐right‐ventricle (RV)‐pacemaker lead is the standard approach for transient pacing during TAVI but requires central venous access. METHODS: An observational registry including 672 patients who underwent TAVI between June 2018 and December 2020. Patients received pacing on the wire when necessary, unless there was a high‐anticipated risk for conduction disturbances post‐TAVI, based on the baseline‐ECG. The follow‐up period was 30 days. RESULTS: A temporary‐RV‐pacemaker lead (RVP‐cohort) was inserted in 45 patients, pacing on the wire (LVP‐cohort) in 488 patients, and no pacing (NoP‐cohort) in 139 patients. A bailout temporary pacemaker was implanted in 14 patients (10.1%) in the NoP‐cohort and in 24 patients (4.9%) in the LVP‐cohort. One patient in the LVP‐cohort needed an RV‐pacemaker for incomplete ventricular capture. Procedure time was significantly longer in the RVP‐cohort (68 min [IQR 52–88.] vs. 55 min [IQR 44–72] in NoP‐cohort and 55 min [IQR 43–71] in the LVP‐cohort [p < 0.005]). Procedural high‐degree AV‐block occurred most often in the RVP‐cohort (45% vs. 14% in the LVP and 16% in the NoP‐cohort [p ≤ 0.001]). Need for new PPI occurred in 47% in the RVP‐cohort, versus 20% in the NoP‐cohort and 11% in the LVP‐cohort (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: A restricted RV‐pacemaker strategy is safe and shortens procedure time. The majority of TAVI‐procedures do not require a temporary‐RV‐pacemaker