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

DPMFoam vs. MPPICFoam and general kinematicCloud questions

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

Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By Tobi

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 8, 2020, 06:20
Default DPMFoam vs. MPPICFoam and general kinematicCloud questions
  #1
Super Moderator
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51
Tobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
Hi all,


I never investigated too much into the Lagrangian solver but it seems interesting and used in a variety of engineering problems such as DeNOx systems, separators and so on. Nevertheless, during the Covid-19 time, I am also investigating into a simple case. Until now, I only used the uncoupled solvers but here, I do have flow-field-particle coupling. Thus, I use DPMFoam. However, going through the MPPIC foam description vs. DPM foam description, the main different I see is that MPPIC uses some model for the particle collision rather than calculating them directly. I guess this is of main interest if we do have a high particle loaded flow as the collision calculation takes much computational time. Furthermore, I would say that if we model more particles in one parcel (nParticles > 1 in the kinematicCloudDict), the MPPIC is even better.

Can someone confirm my intention of the two solvers? Otherwise, it seems that the solvers are more or less similar.



However, another question. The nParticle is the number of particles in one parcel. As we do solve for parcels in foam, it is clear that setting the value of 1 represents that one parcel is one particle. However, if we say 1000, then one parcel includes 1000 particles.


Thus, in which form does it influence the system and does the following assumption holds (without digging into the code myself):


  • Are these 1000 particles of same size or is there a size distribution inside a parcel?
  • The weight of one parcel will probably change which interacts with other models (such as gravity etc). However, is it really similar if we would have 1000 single particles for which the gravity acts on each particle compared to 1 parcel on which acts the gravity on the accumulated weight. Probably the assumption must hold, that a lot of particles has to be inside the domain (the question might be what is "a lot", 5%, 10%, 50% ?)
Furthermore, assuming that we do have a particle distribution we want to separate while having 1000 particles in one parcel; again, does this parcel has a size distribution inside; probably not. Thus, if we have a separation of parcels which are removed from the domain at one patch (acting force might be the gravitational force), can we count the size distribution we get on these patch? If one parcel represents only one specific size class, then things would be easier to calculate. However,



  • for one-size classed parcels, would we be able to calculate the amount of particles and size class that enter one specific patch, e.g. a size-distribution and amount of particles using foam libraries
  • for multi-size classed parcels, would we also be able to calculate the amount of particles and their size distribution on a specific patch e.g. a size-distribution and amount of particles using foam libraries


I am also wondering about other keywords such as:


  • coupled (to the flow field or one-way vs. two way --> parcels do influence the flow field)
  • transient (shouldn't be the Lagragian calculation be always transient?)
  • ...
  • ...
    I can check them in the source code of course.


Thanks in advance,
Tobi
__________________
Keep foaming,
Tobias Holzmann
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 19, 2020, 09:29
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 9
liliu is on a distinguished road
Hi, Tobi,

I am currently investigating the applications of the MPPICFoam and DPMFoam solvers, so wonder if you have had a look at the code for those questions in your thread and could share at here. Thank you.
liliu is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 15, 2021, 08:01
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Thibaut
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 5
Taendyr is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I'd like to simulate a mix af gas and particles. MPPIC seemed adequat to me. The only thing is that I need a compressible solver for the gas part. Does MPPIC handle this ? I didn't find the answer
Taendyr is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 29, 2021, 11:28
Default gas-solid multiphase flow
  #4
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 11
jetface is on a distinguished road
This is a nice paper that talks about the different gas-solid modeling approaches.

I am familiar with the MP-PIC model used in OpenFOAM 5 through 8. I haven't used DPMFoam but I believe it is actually the Dense Discrete Phase Model (DDPM) since it does seem to handle collisions. MP-PIC is a newer method that describes the particles as groups (parcels) using a Particle Density Function (PDF) to improve computational efficiency. It uses different collision models because of that. This is my understanding anyways.

I'd recommend giving that paper a read. It describes things much better than I can.

And I believe both use an incompressible solver for the Eulerian portion of the model (the PIMPLE solver essentially). You may want to look at the compressible solver you want to use and compare it to the MP-PIC or DPM solver to see which will be easier to modify. I've written my own MP-PIC solver and I started with PIMPLE and added the Lagrangian part. Wasn't too difficult. So starting with the compressible solver might be the way to go.
jetface is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 2, 2021, 08:59
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 237
Rep Power: 16
vonboett is on a distinguished road
I merged DPMFoam into debrisInterMixing (interMixingFoam based debris flow solver) and interFoam to account for gravel collisions and it worked fine. I validated the code using the experiments of Fessler et al. (1999) for 1.1 % mass concentration.
As I could not find out about the questions of particle handling within parcels, I use 1 particle per parcel and the particle size distribution as defined by the material probe from the sieve curve using sizeDistribution{ type general; generalDistribution{ distribution( (sizeClass share));}}.
vonboett is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 12, 2021, 19:53
Default compressible supersonic flow with very low particle injection
  #6
New Member
 
Maricruz H.
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
Zurciram is on a distinguished road
Hi,
You mentioned that you are familiar with compressible flows coupled with particles injection so I decide to write you. I have been trying to simulate a supersonic biphasic flow through de Laval nozzle with particle injection with a very low volume fraction without reaction. I have read and test with different solvers but my knowledge of OpenFOAM is not still enough. Could you give some advice or some tutorial guides to focus on this task because right now I feel some lost. I´d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance!.
Zurciram is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 11, 2021, 21:08
Default
  #7
New Member
 
shengnan li
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 4
leeseungnan@163.com is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taendyr View Post
Hi,

I'd like to simulate a mix af gas and particles. MPPIC seemed adequat to me. The only thing is that I need a compressible solver for the gas part. Does MPPIC handle this ? I didn't find the answer
Hi, Do you want to use MPPICFoam to couple with the compressible gas solver? Have you achieved it? Which compressible solver is used?
leeseungnan@163.com is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 11, 2021, 21:11
Default
  #8
New Member
 
shengnan li
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 4
leeseungnan@163.com is on a distinguished road
Hi, Do you want to use MPPICFoam to couple with the compressible gas solver? Have you achieved it? Which compressible solver is used?
leeseungnan@163.com is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 30, 2023, 08:16
Question mppic tracking capabilities
  #9
Member
 
desimuser1
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 3
Desimuser1 is on a distinguished road
how does MPPIC foam recognise particle smaller than the mesh size and also track particles inside the mesh size element
Desimuser1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 30, 2023, 08:44
Default
  #10
Member
 
desimuser1
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 3
Desimuser1 is on a distinguished road
i think MPPIC foam is for transient incompressible calculations.
i think you can use coal chemistry, reacting parcel, spray, spray dynamic mesh solvers for it
Desimuser1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 30, 2023, 19:14
Default
  #11
Super Moderator
 
Tobi's Avatar
 
Tobias Holzmann
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tussenhausen
Posts: 2,708
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 51
Tobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura aboutTobi has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via ICQ to Tobi Send a message via Skype™ to Tobi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desimuser1 View Post
how does MPPIC foam recognise particle smaller than the mesh size and also track particles inside the mesh size element
Because it is still a Lagrange solver. As far as I got it, only the collisions are calculated differently - but I am not sure about that. However, regarding the particles themself -> lagrange -> not mesh dependent.


But I never went through the theory ...
__________________
Keep foaming,
Tobias Holzmann
Tobi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 2, 2023, 23:41
Default
  #12
Member
 
desimuser1
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 3
Desimuser1 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobi View Post
Because it is still a Lagrange solver. As far as I got it, only the collisions are calculated differently - but I am not sure about that. However, regarding the particles themself -> lagrange -> not mesh dependent.


But I never went through the theory ...

thank you toby
been a fan
Desimuser1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 1, 2023, 07:21
Default
  #13
Member
 
rezaeimahdi's Avatar
 
mahdi
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 10
rezaeimahdi is on a distinguished road
The problem arises when you want to use two-way coupling.

If the particle size is big compared to the mesh size, you will get a wrong particle velocity, wrong fluid-particle forces (mostly drag) and wrong volume fraction.

These are field quantities based on the CFD mesh and are obtained from the locations, the sizes, and the velocities of each individual particles as well as the fluid forces acting on them.

So, in the literature, it mentioned that particle size should be 3-5 times smaller than mesh size. (I found even 25 times smaller in some cases)

Last edited by rezaeimahdi; November 1, 2023 at 11:00.
rezaeimahdi is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 2, 2024, 23:12
Default
  #14
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 11
s.amirzadeh is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezaeimahdi View Post
The problem arises when you want to use two-way coupling.

If the particle size is big compared to the mesh size, you will get a wrong particle velocity, wrong fluid-particle forces (mostly drag) and wrong volume fraction.

These are field quantities based on the CFD mesh and are obtained from the locations, the sizes, and the velocities of each individual particles as well as the fluid forces acting on them.

So, in the literature, it mentioned that particle size should be 3-5 times smaller than mesh size. (I found even 25 times smaller in some cases)
Hi Reza,

thanks for the information provided. I am trying to simulate a bubbly flow using discrete phase modeling. So far, I was using MPPICFoam and tonight I found out, as you said, wrong answers will be produced if particles sizes are big. mine have the same size as mesh elements! Do you know how I may be able to do such simulation (DPM with particles having same size as mesh elements) using OpenFOAM?
s.amirzadeh is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General questions of MPPICFoam TurbJet OpenFOAM 1 August 11, 2023 07:46


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:10.