Coupling DEM and CFD Simulation

COUPLING OF DEM AND CFD
SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENT
25 March 2009
Christoph Kloss
Stefan Pirker
Discrete Element Method

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Christian-Doppler Laboratory
on Particulate Flow Modelling
Outline

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
I.
The Discrete-Element-Method (DEM)
II.
DEM Simulation Examples
III.
DEM CFD Coupling (Model Synthesis)
IV.
Coupled DEM-CFD Simulation Examples
IV.
Conclusions and Future Prospects
I.
I: The Discrete-Element-Method

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Principles of DEM
In DEM, every single particle ist tracked in Lagrangian

Frame. The force balance is integreated explicitely.
DEM manages information about each individual particle
(mass, velocity,...) and the forces acting on it. It can also
take into account the particles shape, rather than assuming
that all particles are spherical.
Normally, soft-sphere contact models where particles are
allowed to slightly overlap (<0.5%) are used to resolve
every single contact

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Normal Force:
Hertzian model: F~ 3/2 k
Cundall & Strack, 1979: F~ k
Principle of DEM
Contact force: Modelling of particles

as spring-damper systems
Forces that can be included:

Contact forces (soft-sphere approach):
particle-particle, particle-wall
Gravity
Fluid drag
Electrostatic and magnetic forces
Cohesion
Chemical bonds
Characteristics of DEM:
DEM is limited by CPU resources and low time-steps
Boundary conditions like velocity inlet or pressure outlet are
not available and have to be programmed manually
Stiff materials require short time-steps
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
DEM vs. Eulerian Granular Models

Eulerian Models
Calculation of conservation equations on a grid

Properties of indivual particles are smeared out (loss of
information
Closure relations are used (e.g. granular pressure and
temperature)
A yield criterion is used
Eulerian models are CPU-efficient
DEM

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Closer to the physics by resolving the micro-scale

Contact laws are used
Efficient contact detection is important
CPU ressources limit applicability
DEM Simulations: Practical Issues
Time-Step has to be a fraction (10%?) of the Rayleigh time:

Tr= r sqrt(/G)/(0.163 +0.8766)
(r: radius, density, G: shear modulus, poisson ratio)
Example (glass): r=4 mm, =2500 kg/m, G=26 GPa, =0.25 t=4.2e-7s
Simulation time varies with material properties
A maximum penetration of 0.5% of dp is allowed:

so that vmax t= 0.005 dp,min
Example: vmax=10 m/s, dp,min=1mm t=5e-7 s
Simulation time varies with dp,min and vmax

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
DEM Simulations: Practical Issues
Simulation time increases when long-lasting particle

contacts come into play (contact search)
Practical numbers:
Cundall number (=particle time-steps / CPU second) of

~200.000 on desktop computers
Example: 100.000 particles , t=5e-6,

1 hour computation on one CPU=36 ms real-time

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Particle limit of ~1 mio. on desktop computers
II.
II: DEM Simulation Examples

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
I. DEM Simulation Example

Hopper Discharge

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
10
II. DEM Simulation Example

Particle Charging / Bed Formation
distribution density function

0.4
simulation - fine
simulation - coarse
experiment - coarse
experiment - fine
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
x in m
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
11
III. DEM Simulation Example
Simulation of Bed Formation: API-Implementation
time-dependant boundaries
Particles are
kept in place
by controller
Partikel have
been removed
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
12
III.
III: DEM-CFD Coupling

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
13
Parallel DEM-CFD Coupling

Principle
particle data
init
EDEM (C++)
including fluid drag
100 time-steps
t ~ 1e-5s
FLUENT (C)
1 time-step
t ~ 1e-3s
end

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
flow data
14
Parallel DEM-CFD Coupling

Program FlowChart
start
EDEM calculates
100 time-steps,
and transfers particle
data to FLUENT
FLUENT calculates
1 time-step
FLUENT fetches EDEM
particle data
FLUENT searches cell
each particle is in
Parallel Processing is necessary to

deal with large-scale geometries!
FLUENT calculates
volume fraction and
momentum coupling
FLUENT transfers flow
data to EDEM

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
15
IV.
IV: Coupled DEM-CFD Simulation

Examples

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
16
I. DEM-CFD Coupling Example
Proof of Concept - Acceleration of Single Particle

3
2.5
water flow, u = 3 m/s
v in m/s
glass particle
d = 4 mm
u0 = 0 m/s
1.5
1
EDEM-FLUENT Coupled Simulation
Analytical Solution
0.5

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t in s
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
17
II. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Trajectory Segregation
flow vectors
in the midplane
umax=1.7 m/s
detail
detail

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
18
II. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Trajectory Segregation
flow vectors
in the midplane
umax=1.7 m/s

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
19
III. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Hopper Discharge With Standpipe
Hopper geometry
(all lengths in mm)

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
20

particle velocity in m/s

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
fluid velocity in m/s
21

fluid accelerates
particles
particles
accelerate fluid
z-momentum source on fluid in N/m

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
solids fraction
22
Hopper Discharge With Standpipe | Experimental Validation

Pressure of the fluid phase
0
-0.5
simulation
measurement
-1
p in Pa
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
z in m
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
23
Z1
IV. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Partial Fluidized Bed
side view
d in = 4 mm
bed
14 cm
7 cm
3.4 cm
top view
4 cm
30.5 cm

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Gas: 6 Nm/h = 0.02 kg/s, vIn=132m/s
24
Slide 24
Z1
Bohrung leicht schief:

Aussen 8mm vom Rand entfernt innen 6mm
(auf 6cm Wandstrke)
ZID; 23-02-2009
IV. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Partial Fluidized Bed
Solids fraction in the injection plane

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
25
V. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Pneumatic Conveying

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
26

Pneumatic Conveying
particles
gas

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
27

Pneumatic Conveying
left middle right
particles
gas

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
28
y in m
Pneumatic Conveying
y in m
particle volume fraction at pos. 3 from coupled DEM-CFD simulation

0.14
left
0.12
right
middle
0.1
no magnus force
with magnus force
0.08

0.14
left
0.12
right
middle
no magnus force
0.1
with magnus force
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.5
1.5
2
volume fraction
2.5
3.5
-3
x 10

0.14
left
0.12
right
0.06
middle
no magnus force
with magnus force
0.1
y in m
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.2

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
volume fraction
1.2
1.4
1.6
-3
x 10
0.5
1
1.5
volume fraction
2.5
-3
x 10
29

Pneumatic Conveying
particle velocity at pos. 2 from coupled DEM-CFD simulation
0.14
0.14
left
right
0.1
y in m
0.12
middle
no magnus force
with magnus force
0.1
y in m
left
right
middle
no magnus force
with magnus force
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.08
3
4
5
particle velocity

0.14
left
right
0.12
middle
no magnus force
0.1
with magnus force
0.06
y in m
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.04

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
4
6
particle velocity
10
0.02
0
3
4
particle velocity
30

Pneumatic Conveying
volume fraction at pos. 3
particle velocity at pos. 3
0.12
0.12
measurement
simulation
0.1
0.1
0.08
y in m
measurement
simulation
0.06
0.04
0.08
y in m
0.02
0
0
0.06
4
5
6
particle velocity in m/s
10
volume fraction at pos. 2

0.12
measurement
simulation
0.1
0.04
y in m
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.2

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
0.4
0.6
0.8
volume fraction
1.2
1.4
-3
x 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
volume fraction
1.2
1.4
-3
x 10
31
VI.
VI: Conclusions and Prospects

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
32
DEM-CFD Coupling
Conclusion
We showed that the the synthesis of DEM and CFD leads to a very
versatile tool. Many possibilities of application, applicable for
different kind of regimes:

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
High solids fraction (fluidized bed, hopper discharge)

Low solids fraction (trajectory segregation during charging,
pneumatic conveying).
One way coupling fluid flow induced by particle motion
(hopper discharge, trajectory segregation during charging)
One way coupling particle motion induced by fluid flow
(pneumatic conveying)
Two way coupling strong interaction between particle motion
and fluid flow (fluidized bed)
33
DEM-CFD Coupling
Prospects Model Synthesis
Simulation snapshot
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
Solids volume fraction (cap at 3%)
34
DEM-CFD Coupling
Prospects Model Synthesis (DEM-DPM Coupling)
DPM Source
DEM Sink
DEM Source
DPM Sink
EDEM
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
DEM-DPM
boundary
DPM-DEM
boundary
DPM Injection
FLUENT
35
DEM-CFD Coupling
Prospects Model Synthesis
time-dependant boundaries
Particles are
kept in place
by controller
Partikel have
been removed
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
36
DEM-CFD Coupling
Prospects
As DEM is very CPU intense, it is desired to extend our coupling

software to incorporate further models for granular media for cases
where good results can be achieved with a less CPU demanding
method (model synthesis). These could include FLUENTs DPM,
FLUENTs EuEuGran model, and further particulate models.
As the applicability of such a coupled method strongly depends on
computational power, the parallelization is a key issue.
For these reason, our in-house DEM-CFD coupling code is
Fully parallel (on both EDEM and FLUENT side)
Extendable to incorporate further models
Further efforts will be taken in order to make reduce the costly DEM
method to regions where the key physical phenomena occur.
25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
37
Thank you for your attention

25 March 2009
Kopenhagen
38

Coupling DEM and CFD Simulation

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Coupling DEM and CFD Simulation

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

COUPLING OF DEM AND CFD

SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENT

Discrete Element Method

Discrete Element Method

The Discrete-Element-Method (DEM)

DEM Simulation Examples

DEM CFD Coupling (Model Synthesis)

Coupled DEM-CFD Simulation Examples

Conclusions and Future Prospects

Discrete Element Method

In DEM, every single particle ist tracked in Lagrangian

Discrete Element Method

Contact force: Modelling of particles

Forces that can be included:

DEM vs. Eulerian Granular Models

Calculation of conservation equations on a grid

Discrete Element Method

Closer to the physics by resolving the micro-scale

DEM Simulations: Practical Issues

Time-Step has to be a fraction (10%?) of the Rayleigh time:

(r: radius, density, G: shear modulus, poisson ratio)

Simulation time varies with material properties

A maximum penetration of 0.5% of dp is allowed:

Simulation time varies with dp,min and vmax

DEM Simulations: Practical Issues

Simulation time increases when long-lasting particle

Cundall number (=particle time-steps / CPU second) of

Example: 100.000 particles , t=5e-6,

Discrete Element Method

Particle limit of ~1 mio. on desktop computers

II: DEM Simulation Examples

Discrete Element Method

I. DEM Simulation Example

Discrete Element Method

II. DEM Simulation Example

distribution density function

III. DEM Simulation Example

Simulation of Bed Formation: API-Implementation

III: DEM-CFD Coupling

Discrete Element Method

Parallel DEM-CFD Coupling

Discrete Element Method

Parallel DEM-CFD Coupling

Parallel Processing is necessary to

Discrete Element Method

IV: Coupled DEM-CFD Simulation

Discrete Element Method

I. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Proof of Concept - Acceleration of Single Particle

water flow, u = 3 m/s

Discrete Element Method

II. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Discrete Element Method

II. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Discrete Element Method

III. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

Discrete Element Method

III. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

particle velocity in m/s

fluid velocity in m/s

III. DEM-CFD Coupling Example

z-momentum source on fluid in N/m

III. DEM-CFD Coupling Example