CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM

lagrangian submodels conflict

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By JoeGoe

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   June 8, 2018, 15:11
Default lagrangian submodels conflict
  #1
Member
 
Joaquín Neira
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 8
cojua8 is on a distinguished road
Hello,

I'm working with the intermediate library, trying to use patchInteractionModel and collisionModel, so that particle-particle interaction has a soft sphere treatment (pairSpringSliderDashpot), and the particle-wall interaction has a stick condition.
This way, the expected behavior is that the floor is filled with particles and the moving ones bounce on them.

It seems like the wallSpringSliderDashpot model overrides the stick condition, and the particles just keep bouncing.
Also, there is no 'none' wall model.

Code:
    
standardWallInteractionCoeffs
{
        type        stick; // stick, escape
        e           1;       // optional - elasticity coeff
        mu          0;       // optional - restitution coeff
}

    collisionModel pairCollision;

    pairCollisionCoeffs
    {
        maxInteractionDistance  0.00069;

        writeReferredParticleCloud no;

        pairModel pairSpringSliderDashpot;

        pairSpringSliderDashpotCoeffs
        {
                                  // alpha =0.30 para e=0.65
            alpha           0.3; //relacionado empiricamente con coef. de rest.
            b               1.5;  //1 para 2D, 1.5 para 3D
            mu              0.1; // coeficiente de friccion
            cohesionEnergyDensity 0;
            collisionResolutionSteps 12;
            useEquivalentSize   no;
        };

        wallModel wallSpringSliderDashpot;

        wallSpringSliderDashpotCoeffs
        {
                                  // alpha =0.30 para e=0.65
            alpha           5.0; //relacionado empiricamente con coef. de rest.
            b               1.0; //1 para 2D, 1.5 para 3D
            mu              0.1; // coeficiente de friccion
            youngsModulus   1e10;
            poissonsRatio   0.23;
            cohesionEnergyDensity 0;
            collisionResolutionSteps 12;
            useEquivalentSize no;
        };
    }
cojua8 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 12, 2021, 15:11
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Alberta
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
saeedja is on a distinguished road
Hi,

Did you find any answer to this question? I have a similar problem
saeedja is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 26, 2022, 11:15
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Jonas Görtz
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
JoeGoe is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by cojua8 View Post
Hello,

I'm working with the intermediate library, trying to use patchInteractionModel and collisionModel, so that particle-particle interaction has a soft sphere treatment (pairSpringSliderDashpot), and the particle-wall interaction has a stick condition.
This way, the expected behavior is that the floor is filled with particles and the moving ones bounce on them.

It seems like the wallSpringSliderDashpot model overrides the stick condition, and the particles just keep bouncing.
Also, there is no 'none' wall model.

Code:
    
standardWallInteractionCoeffs
{
        type        stick; // stick, escape
        e           1;       // optional - elasticity coeff
        mu          0;       // optional - restitution coeff
}

    collisionModel pairCollision;

    pairCollisionCoeffs
    {
        maxInteractionDistance  0.00069;

        writeReferredParticleCloud no;

        pairModel pairSpringSliderDashpot;

        pairSpringSliderDashpotCoeffs
        {
                                  // alpha =0.30 para e=0.65
            alpha           0.3; //relacionado empiricamente con coef. de rest.
            b               1.5;  //1 para 2D, 1.5 para 3D
            mu              0.1; // coeficiente de friccion
            cohesionEnergyDensity 0;
            collisionResolutionSteps 12;
            useEquivalentSize   no;
        };

        wallModel wallSpringSliderDashpot;

        wallSpringSliderDashpotCoeffs
        {
                                  // alpha =0.30 para e=0.65
            alpha           5.0; //relacionado empiricamente con coef. de rest.
            b               1.0; //1 para 2D, 1.5 para 3D
            mu              0.1; // coeficiente de friccion
            youngsModulus   1e10;
            poissonsRatio   0.23;
            cohesionEnergyDensity 0;
            collisionResolutionSteps 12;
            useEquivalentSize no;
        };
    }
Hi,


even though your post is old, I might just share my findings on that issue.


I ran into the same problem, where the patchInteraction-Model (in my case: escape) was overwritten by the wallSlingSliderDashpot model and the particles simply wouldn't leave my domain. Using two-way coupling, the particles did leave the output as planned.



The identification of the problem took me quite some time, but the solution is rather simple: The patch interaction model does only work for patches. If your patch is in constant/boundary difned as a wall, it will be assigned a particle-wall collision when using four way coupling. Since it has overwritten "type: escape" in my case, I guess it will do the same for "type: stick" as in your simulation.


Maybe this was/will be helpful to somebody.


Cheers Joe
rezaeimahdi likes this.
JoeGoe is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aurelia Vallier, MultiScale, Eulerian-Lagrangian Couplling, VOF-LPT, Lagrangian, saddy OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 August 9, 2017 14:28
Request for Lagrangian Particle Tracking Validation or Verification Paper Mojtaba.a OpenFOAM Verification & Validation 6 May 23, 2016 01:47
converse lagrangian field to eulerian Jan_B OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 August 13, 2015 13:11
about Lagrangian Multiphase Simulation jhlee9622 STAR-CCM+ 0 March 18, 2015 01:38
subModels in reactingCloud1Properties in fireFOAM TaylorM OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 January 28, 2015 21:38


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:20.