DPM Model. Too much particle injected.
 

Hi Everyone,

I am currently doing a ventilation project for a small office room. There are two occupants. One the pollutant, which the "tracer" gas is expelled out through his mouth. The other is the exposed which is basically there to see if the tracer gas will actually flow to him.

I am tasked to do it using DPM. However, I am having troubles with injecting less particles. As of current, the number of particles being injected out of the mouth is 60. Which is too much for my case.

Another question I have is, will having too much particle injected affect the turbulence model (k-e)?

Thank you everyone. Hoping to hear from you soon.

How do you set the injection? If you do it via a surface, 1 particle is emitted from every gridcell every timestep. If you want to control the number of particles, it may be better to use group-injection where you can set the number of streams explicitly.

When it comes to turbulence, particles will only affect turbulence in case 2-way coupling is enabled (interaction with continuous phase). If this is disabled, turbulence may affect particles but not the other way around. Since you are just using particles to study flow profiles (massless particles?) and not to physically affect flow, I suppose you are not using 2-way coupling.

Hi Sir,

one more question, because im really lost. Do you perhaps know the difference between the three different k-epsilon model? The standard, RNG and realizable. I am currently running on realizable, however, I am not getting convergence. I have checked my boundary conditions and am pretty sure it is right.

background: My project is slow velocity particle injection from one human in a small office room. Air is from the inlet at 0.5m/s and the particle is "breathe out" at 1.4m/s.

My target for this project is to see how the particle trajectory is in the room from the effect of this setup (Displacement Ventilation)

I am not getting any nice convergence. and am pretty worried.
Thanks sir.

Sincerely,
Legolas

Yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure how relevant that is for now. Not getting convergence can be due to a lot of things, and when using k-epsilon type models, it's often not the turbulence model that is the issue (they are all relatively easy to converge, compared to alternatives). It can be wrong boundary conditions, it can be a poor mesh, it can be a too aggressive solution strategy (high under-relaxation factors), it can be that you're trying to cast an unsteady problem into a steady solution, it can be you added additional physics (e.g. temperature) without specifying conditions for that, so something irrelevant blows up. You will need to specify more information for help on such an issue.

But a more fundamental question, since you apparently don't know the difference between the various k-epsilon formulations (conceptually, not necessarily mathematically), how much time did you spend on learning CFD theory? The challenge in CFD is often knowing what you are doing; anyone can click buttons in ANSYS and get something to run - but you need to know which buttons, why, and how to interpret the outcome. How much time did you spend on that? On this forum, you can find technical assistance for many specific options in FLUENT, but it is assumed you have some training in basic CFD - we can't teach you the entire theory here.

Dear Sir,

I have been learning about CFD theory since two months ago. However, it has been a steep learning curve for me because I have to learn it by myself. Therefore, I do have lots of queries about how CFD works. I have done lots of literature review on similar projects and have been trying to incorporate similar boundaries conditions and meshes. Hence, with the inputs from professionals here, I am hoping to learn more and possibly towards a more specific application regarding this project. Hope you see where I am coming from.

Sincerely,
Legolas