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

OpenFOAM 2.0.0 DEM method

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 13, 2011, 11:24
Default OpenFOAM 2.0.0 DEM method
  #1
And
New Member
 
Andrea Aprovitola
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 7
And is on a distinguished road
Hello to the forum,

It seems that the new lagrangian functionalities included in the version 2.0.0 allow to conduct four-way coupled simulations of particle laden flows as it is reported at the following link:

http://www.openfoam.com/version2.0.0/lagrangian.php
  • detailed collision models that can include deformation, friction, rolling, cohesion, etc., for example, a spring-slider-dashpot model;
  • each particle can undergo multiple, simultaneous collisions;
  • different sized particles and “representative” particles, i.e. single computational particles that represent several real particles;
  • complete coupling with the continuum phase

If I understand correctly the previous issues, simultaneous collisions are taken into account and there is a complete coupling with the continuos phase should mean that the effect of particle-particle interactions on the continuos phase is described by the model. Is this the right interpretation or not ?

Thanks in advance,

Andrea
And is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 14, 2011, 09:29
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7
cgoniva is on a distinguished road
Hello Andrea!

There is a lot of new functionality for the lagrangian particles. The solver "uncoupledKinematicParcelFoam" does not include the 4-way coupling (fluid velocity field is pre-defined).

We tried to do some rough comparison of new DEM functionality in OpenFOAM(R) with another open source CFD-DEM coupling for the Hopper test case. (see: www.cfdem.com CFDEM Benchmarks)

Cheers,
Chris
cgoniva is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 14, 2011, 10:20
Default
  #3
Member
 
Franco Marra
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Napoli - Italy
Posts: 51
Rep Power: 8
francescomarra is on a distinguished road
Hello Chris !

Nice to see you in this forum.

I was just discussing with Andrea about the differences between the lagrangian library of OpenFOAM and that of CFDEM. Looking at the speedup reported in the CFDEM Benchmarks you pointed, I would ask you if the reason for the large differences can be attributed to different strategy of parallelization.
OpenFOAM use essentially a domain decomposition method, for the distribution of particles too.
I do not know CFDEM in the same detail (always quite low) but it should be the coupling of two codes (OpenFOAM and LIGGGTHS). Therefore, while domain decomposition should be still adopted for the fluid phase, a different approach could be adopted for the lagrangian phase, for instance a perfect distribution of particle among processors. That way, a perfect load balance could be always ensured for the lagrangian phase too.

If this is the case, to increase speedup of the OpenFOAM library, a proper domain decomposition, that optimize not only the number of cells but also the number of particles attributed to each processor, should effectively improve speedup results.

Your comment and suggestion will greatly help me.

Best regards,

Franco
francescomarra is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 14, 2011, 11:11
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 7
cgoniva is on a distinguished road
Hi Francesco,

As I do not know the OpenFOAM(R) implementation in detail I cannot comment on that too much...

Your point is right, different domain decompositions for DEM and CFD can bring a speedup, but only when domains differ in size or particles are located in a small region of the whole domain. Which is not the case for the Hopper example.

More important is probably the neighbor list build-up. (you only want to check for possible particle collisions)

Another difference is the localization of the particles IMHO OpenFOAM(R) tracks them through every cell (face to face algorithm - very accurate) ,while CFDEM does lose-find which can be efficient when the coupling interval is long.

Main strength of LIGGGHTS is the efficiency of its code-base (LAMMPS) and the CFDEM coupling profits from that as well. From the testcase you can see that including 4-way coupling costs time compared to pure DEM, but nevertheless it is pretty fast.

I would be happy to have a more detailed comparison of the performance of the codes (what we currently have is just a rough estimate).

Best regards,
Chris
cgoniva is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 15, 2011, 03:27
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
flosens is on a distinguished road
Hi guys,

I`m new to this forum and I`m particularly interested in DEM-CFD coupling.
I ran the icoUncoupledKinematicParcelFoam case but there is no coupling happening. The solver name includes `uncoupled` which leads me to the conclusion that is not capable of solving coupled problems.
Could please anybody clearify if coupling by interaction of fluid and particles (forces) is already possible in OF v2.0 or if the coupling is still work in progress ?
If OFv2.0 already includes some coupling functionality what source files should I look at ?
I also checked the doxygen documentation and could not find anything about icoUncoupledKinematicParcelFoam solver yet.

Thanks in advance.
flosens is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 3, 2012, 04:31
Default Creating a positioning of particles
  #6
New Member
 
cfd
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 7
raki_mech81@yahoo.co.in is on a distinguished road
Helloo

Regarding IcoUncoupledkinematicparcelFoam

Please any one how to create a positioning of particles (kinematiccloudpositions) in easier way...


Regards

Ravi
raki_mech81@yahoo.co.in is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2013, 09:52
Default coupled simulation with OF2.x
  #7
New Member
 
Florian
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mannheim, Germany
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 6
riesotto is on a distinguished road
Hi all,

is there a possibility to simulate coupling with the continuum phase (Solver???) with the new options in OF2.x???
Similar simulations like the fluidized bed at http://www.cfdem.com/
There Should be a possibility (see here http://www.openfoam.org/version2.0.0/lagrangian.php)

I tried using the icoUncoupledKinematicParcelFoam solver of the hopper tutorial. First I modified the boundary in in the blockMeshDict, to get an inlet and outlet. Then I modified /0/U with 'appropriate' values. Finally I change the kinematicCloudProperties (coupled true).

However, no success. I get the following error message:
Create time

Create mesh for time = 0
Reading g
Reading transportProperties
Reading field U
Reading/calculating face flux field phi

Selecting incompressible transport model Newtonian
Selecting turbulence model type RASModel
Selecting RAS turbulence model laminar
Constructing kinematicCloud kinematicCloud
[0]
[0]
[0] --> FOAM FATAL IO ERROR:
[0] keyword sourceTerms is undefined in dictionary "/home/florian/OpenFOAM/florian-2.1.1/run/DEm/Test/processor0/../constant/kinematicCloudProperties::solution"
[0]
[0] file: /home/florian/OpenFOAM/florian-2.1.1/run/DEm/Test/processor0/../constant/kinematicCloudProperties::solution from line 20 to line 34.
[0]
[0] From function dictionary::subDict(const word& keyword)
[0] in file [1]
db/dictionary/dictionary.C at line 479.
[0]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[0]
[1]
[1] --> FOAM FATAL IO ERROR:
[1] keyword sourceTerms is undefined in dictionary "IOstream::solution"
[1]
[1] file: IOstream::solution from line 0 to line 0.
[1]
[1] From function dictionary::subDict(const word& keyword)
[1] in file db/dictionary/dictionary.C at line 479.
[1]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPI_ABORT was invoked on rank 1 in communicator MPI_COMM_WORLD
with errorcode 1.

...

With
coupled false everthing works fine, but there is no interaction with the continuum phase.

Any ideas???

kind regards
Florian
riesotto is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 7, 2015, 11:20
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Josefine Wilms
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 7
Fine is on a distinguished road
Hi

For the particles to be coupled with the continuum phase, should there not be a volume fraction term included in the continuum velocity equation? Should the momentum equation for the continuum phase not look almost identical to that used in twoPhaseEulerFoam for the U2Eqn?

I can't seem to find where the volume fraction is included in the momentum equations for any of the lagrangian solvers in OpenFOAM 2.2.1.

Can anybody perhaps point out if the coupling is indeed done in the lagrangian solvers, and if it is: why is a volume fraction term not included in the momentum equation for the continuum phase?
Fine is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OpenFOAM 1.6.x, 1.7.0 and 1.7.x are not fully prepared to work with gcc-4.5.x wyldckat OpenFOAM Bugs 18 October 21, 2010 05:51
Cross-compiling OpenFOAM 1.7.0 on Linux for Windows 32 and 64bits with Mingw-w64 wyldckat OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 3 September 8, 2010 06:25
Cross-compiling OpenFOAM 1.6 on Linux for Windows 32 and 64bits with Mingw-w64 wyldckat OpenFOAM Announcements from Other Sources 7 January 19, 2010 16:39
Modified OpenFOAM Forum Structure and New Mailing-List pete Site News & Announcements 0 June 29, 2009 05:56
The OpenFOAM extensions project mbeaudoin OpenFOAM 16 October 9, 2007 09:33


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55.