Cargando…

Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction

The purpose of this work was to analyse the compaction of a cohesive material using different Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulators to determine the equivalent contact models and to identify how some simulation parameters affect the compaction results (maximum force and compact appearance) and co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina, Ordieres-Meré, Joaquín, Alba-Elías, Fernando, González-Marcos, Ana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30469421
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341
_version_ 1783376105497952256
author Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina
Ordieres-Meré, Joaquín
Alba-Elías, Fernando
González-Marcos, Ana
author_facet Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina
Ordieres-Meré, Joaquín
Alba-Elías, Fernando
González-Marcos, Ana
author_sort Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this work was to analyse the compaction of a cohesive material using different Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulators to determine the equivalent contact models and to identify how some simulation parameters affect the compaction results (maximum force and compact appearance) and computational costs. For this purpose, three cohesion contact models were tested: linear cohesion in EDEM, and simplified Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (SJKR) and modified SJKR (SJKR2) in LIGGGHTS. The influence of the particle size distribution (PSD) on the results was also investigated. Further assessments were performed on the effect of (1) selecting different timesteps, (2) using distinct conversion tolerances to export the three-dimensional models to standard triangle language (STL) files, and (3) moving the punch with different speeds. Consequently, we determined that a timestep equal to a 10% Rayleigh timestep, a conversion tolerance of 0.01 mm, and a punch speed of 0.1 m/s is adequate for simulating the compaction process using the materials and the contact models in this work. The results showed that the maximum force was influenced by the PSD due to the rearrangement of the particles. The PSD was also related to the computational cost because of the number of simulated particles and their sizes. Finally, an equivalence was found between the linear cohesion and SJKR2 contact models.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6267572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62675722018-12-17 Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina Ordieres-Meré, Joaquín Alba-Elías, Fernando González-Marcos, Ana Materials (Basel) Article The purpose of this work was to analyse the compaction of a cohesive material using different Discrete Element Method (DEM) simulators to determine the equivalent contact models and to identify how some simulation parameters affect the compaction results (maximum force and compact appearance) and computational costs. For this purpose, three cohesion contact models were tested: linear cohesion in EDEM, and simplified Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (SJKR) and modified SJKR (SJKR2) in LIGGGHTS. The influence of the particle size distribution (PSD) on the results was also investigated. Further assessments were performed on the effect of (1) selecting different timesteps, (2) using distinct conversion tolerances to export the three-dimensional models to standard triangle language (STL) files, and (3) moving the punch with different speeds. Consequently, we determined that a timestep equal to a 10% Rayleigh timestep, a conversion tolerance of 0.01 mm, and a punch speed of 0.1 m/s is adequate for simulating the compaction process using the materials and the contact models in this work. The results showed that the maximum force was influenced by the PSD due to the rearrangement of the particles. The PSD was also related to the computational cost because of the number of simulated particles and their sizes. Finally, an equivalence was found between the linear cohesion and SJKR2 contact models. MDPI 2018-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6267572/ /pubmed/30469421 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina
Ordieres-Meré, Joaquín
Alba-Elías, Fernando
González-Marcos, Ana
Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction
title Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction
title_full Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction
title_fullStr Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction
title_short Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction
title_sort comparison of cohesive models in edem and liggghts for simulating powder compaction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30469421
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341
work_keys_str_mv AT ramirezaragoncristina comparisonofcohesivemodelsinedemandliggghtsforsimulatingpowdercompaction
AT ordieresmerejoaquin comparisonofcohesivemodelsinedemandliggghtsforsimulatingpowdercompaction
AT albaeliasfernando comparisonofcohesivemodelsinedemandliggghtsforsimulatingpowdercompaction
AT gonzalezmarcosana comparisonofcohesivemodelsinedemandliggghtsforsimulatingpowdercompaction