Sphere settling at Re = 1.5

Submitted by jpola on Sat, 04/23/2016 - 15:12

Hello,

I'm trying to reconstruct cases described in article: "Simulation of Sedimentation of a Sphere in a Viscous Fluid Using the Lattice Boltzmann Method Combined with the Smoothed Profile Method" by Suresh Alapati, Woo Seong Che, and Yong Kweon Suh, and here A. ten Cate, C. H. Nieuwstad, J. J. Derksen, and H. E. A. van den Akker, “Particle imaging velocimetry experiments and lattice-Botlzmann simulations on a single sphere settling under gravity,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 4012–4025, 2002.

Paper introduces the LBM method capable of handling solid particles within the fluid. The validation case is a particle settling due to gravitational force.

I would like to use cfdemSolverIB for that.
I have problem because the velocity of the particle is not constant after some time and I'm searching for the root cause.

The domain size is (0.1, 0.1, 0.16). On all boundaries I've set up the no-slip BC (U = (0, 0, 0) and p = zeroGradient). Domain is divided into (50, 50, 75) cells. The picture of voidFraction filed is attached to this message. Base on that I think that the resolution is acceptable for the first tests.

The Reynolds number is achieved by adjusting kinematic viscosity. Using simple formula for Re with particle diameter = 0.015, u_{\infty} = 0.038 m/s and Re = 1.5 we get \nu = 3.8e-5. As it is written in the papers the u_{\infty} is calculated using Stokes theorem and it is particle terminal velocity in case of infinite channel. In my simulations at some point I expect that particle velocity will be somewhere around this value, but unfortunately it is much larger and I can't see why.

The time step for CFD is dtc = 1.32E-5, and for DEM side dtd = 1.32e-6; It is calculated taking 10% of Rayleigh time for nylon particle.

I'm not using ArhimedesIB forcing model therefore I assumed that resultant acceleration acting on a particle will be reduced m_p * a = F_b- F_g where m_p is particle mass (Volume * \rho_p) F_b = V \rho_f g - buoyancy force and F_g = V * rho_p * g is the gravity force where g is gravitational acceleration. This gives me a = g * ( (\rho_f / \rho_s) - 1) which for \rho_f = 970 and \rho_s = 1120 a = 1.517 m / s^2

Additional questions:

  • Is the cfdemSolverIB capable for Re ~= 1 to 11? In this document http://www.cfd.com.au/cfd_conf15/PDFs/140GON.pdf It is written that this solver fails for low Re but is mean around 1 or much less than 1 like stokes flow?
  • Will the cfdemSolverForceIB be released in PUBLIC repository?
  • About ArhimedesIB. If I enable ArhimedesIB forces I should use normal gravitational acceleration (9.81) in my simulation setup both LIGGHTS config file and in constant / g file is it right?

I would be verry happy if someone could give me some hints what is wrong with my simulation.
The simulation case is also attached to this message.

Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards,
Jakub.

jpola | Wed, 04/27/2016 - 13:42

The root cause of my wrong results was that I forgot about the fluid density field. When 0/rho file is not present solver is creating the default rho field equal to 1 (see CreateFields.H).
But there is another problem. The velocity field is oscillating as in the picture (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CGi_M-bR3zZ05zNHZGNVJTM2M), due to force oscillation in z direction.
This is simulation for Re = 1.5 with ArchimedesIB forcing model.

Do you have some hints for that.
Thanks,
Jakub

Nico | Sat, 03/28/2020 - 14:49

Hi Jakub,
Its been a while since this post, but I am interested in this case too.
Do you have any updates?
I am also obtaining the oscillation in the velocity of the particle.
Did you menage to resolve this issue?

Best

mofazli | Sun, 03/29/2020 - 23:59

Hi Jakub,
Are you using dynamic refinement near the particle interface. It can be employed by "dynamicMeshDict" in the constant directory. You can fix different refinement levels near your particle, but I suggest that impose maxRefinement=2 for your settling particle case. I have the same issue, and by using dynamic refinement, I got better result. Another option can be refining the grid in the entire domain (as much as refinement level 2), which makes your simulation highly overhead. Hope it works for you.
Mohammad

Nico | Mon, 03/30/2020 - 18:56

Hi Mohammad,
I am using dynamic refinement and I have tested several configurations of numerical methods and properties. I always get the oscillating velocity that Jakub mentioned before.

However, this oscillation is less pronounced when the hole geometry is more refined. But it still occurs.

In the figure below you can see four simulations compared to the work of Cate et al (2002) and Pianet et al (2007). As I increase the entire mesh refinement (like dividing the entire domain 30x30x48) the oscillation do reduce but some instabilities still occurs.

Have you observed these kind of effect? Any suggestions on how to resolve it?

Best

mofazli | Tue, 03/31/2020 - 00:19

Hi Nico,
I didn't get the oscillating results unless by removing the dynamic mesh refinement. In addition, if I refine all the domain according to the refinement criteria in the dynamic refinement, the oscillation would be removed, which is really costly. You should consider that base on Hager's suggestion, each particle should be occupied with 8 uniform cells. So, I am imposing a further dynamic refinement to this. I suggest you check your dynamic refinement by looking at the CFD results in a sliced mood and activating "Surfaces with Edges" on paraview. Hope it works for you.
Sincerely
Mohammad

Nico | Tue, 03/31/2020 - 17:26

Hi Mohammad,

I am using dynamic meshing and I've tried several refinements. The dynamic mesh is working and I even increased the suggestion of Hager by using more than 8 cells per particle. As I mentioned before, the oscillation reduce as the mesh refinement increases. It is not so pronounced as the one posted before in this discussion. I have tried 4 different initial refinements in the domain, 8x8x13, 10x10x16, 20x20x32 and 30x30x48 (considering that the dynamic mesh will still be applied in these refinements). independent of the mesh, I never get a smooth curve of the particle velocity. There is always a small oscillation.

I am wondering what was your first refinement (considering the domain size specified in Cate et al (2002), i.e. a 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.16 m)?
Can you post here your result?

Thank you for your time!

Best

mofazli | Tue, 03/31/2020 - 23:58

Hi Nico, Unfortunately, there is not the option in the forum to post my results here. Nevertheless, you can email me to send you them (mohammad.fazli@monash.edu). Regarding the geometry, yes. It is based on the geometry that has been studied by Cate et al. [2002].
Best,
Mohammad

Nico | Mon, 03/30/2020 - 19:09

Sorry, I dont know how to attach the file here in the forum. =|

amiya1202 | Thu, 08/24/2023 - 12:42

Has anyone been able to benchmark this case with cfdem IB method, I was able to get the terminal velocity right for Re = 1.5. But when the sphere is approaching the bottom I am not able to model the outward flow of fluid which gets squeezed between the wall and the sphere. Any suggestion in this regard is highly appreciated.