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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |