2022
DOI: 10.3390/fluids7100337
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of RANS-DEM and LES-DEM Methods in OpenFOAM for Simulation of Particle-Laden Turbulent Flows

Abstract: CFD-DEM modelling of particle-laden turbulent flow is challenging in terms of the required and obtained CFD resolution, heavy DEM computations, and the limitations of the method. Here, we assess the efficiency of a particle-tracking solver in OpenFOAM with RANS-DEM and LES-DEM approaches under the unresolved CFD-DEM framework. Furthermore, we investigate aspects of the unresolved CFD-DEM method with regard to the coupling regime, particle boundary condition and turbulence modelling. Applying one-way and two-wa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Typically, the Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), Large Eddy Simulation (LES), and Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equation (RANS) with turbulence models (i.e., standard, realizable, and renormalization group (RNG) k - ε and k - ω models) were used for generating the mean airflow velocity conditions and including cough and sneezing airflows ( Vuorinen et al, 2020 ; Feng et al, 2020 ; Zeng et al, 2021 ; Rosti et al, 2021 ; Jaiswal et al, 2022 ; Olivieri et al, 2022 ). RANS approach evaluates the mean turbulent flow motion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, the Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), Large Eddy Simulation (LES), and Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equation (RANS) with turbulence models (i.e., standard, realizable, and renormalization group (RNG) k - ε and k - ω models) were used for generating the mean airflow velocity conditions and including cough and sneezing airflows ( Vuorinen et al, 2020 ; Feng et al, 2020 ; Zeng et al, 2021 ; Rosti et al, 2021 ; Jaiswal et al, 2022 ; Olivieri et al, 2022 ). RANS approach evaluates the mean turbulent flow motion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As DNS and LES resolve flow beyond mean flow fields and eventually would result in a more accurate estimation of fluid–particle interaction terms. The DNS–DEM or LES–DEM is mostly not possible, especially for particles larger than typically resolved flow fields (Jaiswal et al, 2022). One has to compromise with the coarsely resolved flow fields, such as mean flow fields, resolved with the RANS approach, especially dealing with large particles such as gravel and sand.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One has to compromise with the coarsely resolved flow fields, such as mean flow fields, resolved with the RANS approach, especially dealing with large particles such as gravel and sand. The RANS–DEM approach neglects the effects of turbulent fluctuations on the particle's trajectory and additional dispersion models would be required to recover the lost turbulent fluctuations due to RANS averaging (Bocksell & Loth, 2006; Jaiswal et al, 2022; Loth, 2000; Minier et al, 2014). However, the inclusion of the dispersion model should be decided based on the process under consideration and might not be necessary.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simulation results show that the numerical model based on DEM-FDM coupling can reasonably simulate tunnel shield tunneling under the condition of TBM operation, and has good robustness. Consequently, more and more research has based on DEM-FDM coupling method [ 28 30 ]. Qu et al [ 31 ] established a computational model using the coupled DEM-FDM method and realized the simulation of the whole process of shield construction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%