Dear all,
Have anyone checked the formula of Di Felice drag force used in CFDEM pavkage?
As I see from the source code (DiFeliceDrag.C) and the refered paper Zhou et al. (2010), the drag coefficient is calculated as:
dragCoefficient=0.125*Cd*rho*M_PI*ds*ds*pow(voidfraction,(2-Xi))*magUr.
However, as I see from Di Felice (1994), the power law coefficient is -Xi while not (2-Xi). In fact, In the literature, there are several variations for the power law coefficient, including 2-Xi (Zhou et al, 2010), -Xi (Felice, 1994), 1-Xi (used in Xu et al, 2000).
Therefore, my question is: Why there are such variation of the power law coefficient? Which one is better or correct? Any suggestion or discussion is greatly appreciated. Many thanks!
Best,
Rachel
References:
Di Felice, R. (1994). The voidage function for fluid-particle interaction systems. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 20(1), 153-159.
Zhou, Z. Y., Kuang, S. B., Chu, K. W., & Yu, A. B. (2010). Discrete particle simulation of particle–fluid flow: model formulations and their applicability. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 661, 482-510.
Xu, B. H., Yu, A. B., Chew, S. J., & Zulli, P. (2000). Numerical simulation of the gas–solid flow in a bed with lateral gas blasting. Powder Technology, 109(1-3), 13-26.
medvedeg | Tue, 04/24/2018 - 13:43
Hi Rachel,
Hi Rachel,
formulation depends on what is magUr: relative velocity or superficial velocity. Superficial velocity is the relative velocity multiplied by the void fraction. In this case correct coefficient is -Xi. If magUr is the relative velocity, than the correct coefficient is 2-Xi, like in CFDEM. Note that this dragCoefficient is later multiplied again by magUr. So the coefficient is correct.
Rachel | Wed, 04/25/2018 - 17:56
Thanks
Thanks. I get your idea~
gelinhan | Wed, 04/25/2018 - 08:13
agree with Alexander
Hi Rachel,
Totally agree with Alexander's explanation. Please also note that the formulation of model type ("A", "B" or "Bfull") might affect the coefficient as well.
Cheers,
Linhan
Rachel | Wed, 04/25/2018 - 17:57
Thanks
Hi Linhan,
Thanks for your suggesiton. I now understand~