# BrowninanMotionForce of particles in laminar flow

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

 March 28, 2016, 05:08 BrowninanMotionForce of particles in laminar flow #1 Member   Bijan Darbari Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 Hello In DPM model, Brownian force is one of the major forces, which act on a particles. Look at the following link ( line 194-197 ): https://github.com/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM...nMotionForce.C For laminar regime, the Brownian force is defined by : Code: ```const scalar rhoRatio = p.rho()/p.rhoc(); const scalar s0 = 216*muc*sigma*Tc/(sqr(mathematical::pi)*pow5(dp)*(rhoRatio)*cc); f = eta*sqrt(mathematical::pi*s0/dt);``` For laminar regime, the correlation for this force is presented in the following : note:where subscripts "f" and "p" denote the fluid and particle, respectively. Moreover, rho is for continuous phase. As shown in this figure, the square of rho_p (particle density) shoud appears at the equation of S0 but I had supposed that the power one of rho_p hed been appeared in the (S0) of the code. - Is this a bug in the code ?? ( If i don't mistake. ) - what is muc?? ( dynamic or kinematic viscosity of continuous phase ) Please kindly guide me. Last edited by bijan darbari; March 30, 2016 at 10:30.

 March 28, 2016, 10:29 muc #2 New Member   Rahand Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 3 Just to your second question: mu is usually the dynamic viscosity and muc in this cas the dynamic viscosity of the continous phase.

 March 30, 2016, 10:31 #3 Member   Bijan Darbari Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 Please kindly guide me.

 April 17, 2016, 01:26 #4 Member   Bijan Darbari Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 45 Rep Power: 3 for more information : http://www.openfoam.org/mantisbt/view.php?id=2036

 June 7, 2016, 07:37 #5 Member   Evangelos Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 85 Rep Power: 7 I think that there are some mistakes in the code of BrownianMotionForce.C a) dt in the code is not the time step (as the reference paper) of the simulation. b) the Boltzmann constant is in eVK^-1 but the reference paper uses the constant in J/K !!! The results from the simulation (with the values above) seems to be logical

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Jade M CFX 14 June 15, 2016 09:36 HectorRedal Main CFD Forum 29 June 2, 2012 07:04 Chander CFX 15 November 6, 2011 06:06 Chander Main CFD Forum 2 October 24, 2011 07:43 shashwat Main CFD Forum 0 April 4, 2008 02:20

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30.