|
[Sponsors] |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
New Member
Shuai Wang
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Hi,
I use DPMFoam to simulate gas-solid flow in a CFB riser, particle number is 201000 with diameter 185um, density 2400kg/m3. The wide-depth-height of the geometry is 32mm-1.2mm-300mm with grids of 64-3-600. However, I have some questions about the solver DPMFoam. 1. How to determine particle time-step in DPMFoam, I can't find this parameter. 2. In my work, I use 16 processors and find the simulation so slow. I want to know if anyone who utilized DPMFoam to simulate gas-solid flow with or more than 200000 particles? 3. The difference of detection algorithm of particle collisions between in DPMFoam and in CFDEM? Which is the better? Thank you! Wang |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
New Member
Jesus Ramirez
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Colombia
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
I was wondering that somebody was working with DPMFoam right now. I have the same doubts and indeed I would like to know if you know which method is implemented in DPMFoam for tracking particles. is it the lagrangian Particle Source in Cell method (PSC)? or the MP-PSC? or an eulerian approach?.
Thank you. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Ananda Kannan
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Hi jarpve!!
From what i know, DPMFoam using lagrangian particle source in cell method.. however its not that straightforward as not all of the 'particulate phase forces' can be directly added as a source in-cell.. what i mean to say is that both drag and buoyancy are dependent on velocity and hence cannot be treated a complete source... for more info read this.. http://www.openfoam.org/mantisbt/fil...=1030&type=bug Regards ansubru |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Ananda Kannan
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Hi Wang!!
I am currently simulating around 150000 particles in my case study (an extension of a fluidized bed) and the case is quite fast... I havent paralellized my application as i use a self modified version of the DPMFOam solver (with capability to handle vibrating/moving walls) which has not been tuned to tackle MPI right now.. However in serial mode, i can simulate upto 5-6 secs (in 10 hrs)... Not the most efficient, but it works ![]() Regards ansubru |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
New Member
Shuai Wang
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Hi jarpve,
I validated the DPMFoam with experiments by Muller et al, the investigated object is a bubbling fluidized bed with 44mm width, 200mm heights and 10mm depth. The numerical results from DPMFoam showed good agreements with the experimental data. Collisions between particles are modeled used soft-sphere model, which is different from MP-PIC in software Barracuda (CPFD). I think DPMFoam is DEM method that likes CFDEM. Regards Wang |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
New Member
Shuai Wang
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Hi ansubru,
Frankly speaking, the parallelization performance of DPMFoam is not as good as CFDEM, I have tested it. In DPMFoam, particle number < 300000, grid number < 200000, I think it can be used as an alternative to other DEM solution’s software. However, when particle number increases, I don’t think DPMFoam is a good choice (Using same processors). In fact, I want to combine DPMFoam with coalChemicalFoam to simulate coal/biomass gasification or combustion in fluidized beds, where particle collisions are modeled by DEM, I am doing this work just now. Best regards Wang |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
New Member
Jesus Ramirez
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Colombia
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Last edited by wyldckat; December 29, 2015 at 14:37. Reason: merged posts that were a few minutes apart |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
New Member
Shuai Wang
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 12 ![]() |
Dear jarpve,
In recent days, I will develop a solver to simulate coal/wood gasification/combustion based on a CFD-DEM coupling approach (i.e. four-way coupling method), this work is based on coalChemistryFoam and DPMFoam, if you are interested in it, more information in this thread: http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...tml#post577524 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
New Member
peter Li
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0 ![]() |
Hi ansubru
Do you have the rest of MPPICFoam tutorial?Can you give me a link? thank you ! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Member
Min Zhang
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 9 ![]() |
Quote:
Hello Shuai, I am wondering whether you could give me some reference (more details) about the detection algorithm of particle collisions. I want to know the difference between CFDEM and DPMFoam. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Min Zhang
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 9 ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Member
Min Zhang
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 9 ![]() |
Quote:
This is Min. I think you are an expert on DPMFoam now. I am wondering whether you have some ideas about the difference between CFDEM and DPMFoam now? Thanks and best regards, Min |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
dpmfoam cfdem |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Floating point exception error | lpz_michele | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 53 | October 19, 2015 02:50 |
time step directories naming issue | Andrea_85 | OpenFOAM | 3 | April 3, 2014 08:38 |
InterFoam negative alpha | karasa03 | OpenFOAM | 7 | December 12, 2013 03:41 |
Micro Scale Pore, icoFoam | gooya_kabir | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 2 | November 2, 2013 13:58 |
Upgraded from Karmic Koala 9.10 to Lucid Lynx10.04.3 | bookie56 | OpenFOAM Installation | 8 | August 13, 2011 04:03 |