2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2010.01.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Packing spherical discrete elements for large scale simulations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
40
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
4
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The packing fractions observed and modelled are consistent with previous studies which report the "loose" packing fraction for monosized spheres to be between 0.55 and 0.58, depending upon the friction conditions and the limit of random dense packing for monosized spheres, under frictionless conditions, which is 0.64 [14,16,17,26,27]. The effect of a distribution in particle size (in this case a standard deviation of roughly 10%) for the "monosized" case is unlikely to enhance the packing behaviour, with benefits only thought to be likely for deviations greater than 30% [18,27].…”
Section: Overview Of Cast Porous Metal Structuressupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The packing fractions observed and modelled are consistent with previous studies which report the "loose" packing fraction for monosized spheres to be between 0.55 and 0.58, depending upon the friction conditions and the limit of random dense packing for monosized spheres, under frictionless conditions, which is 0.64 [14,16,17,26,27]. The effect of a distribution in particle size (in this case a standard deviation of roughly 10%) for the "monosized" case is unlikely to enhance the packing behaviour, with benefits only thought to be likely for deviations greater than 30% [18,27].…”
Section: Overview Of Cast Porous Metal Structuressupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Whilst DEM has been used to model the packing of monosized particle and binary mixtures and compare the predictions with experimental measurements [14][15][16][17] and has been applied to the packing of monosized NaCl particles that formed the basis for a preform to make porous Al [18], previous studies have not combined these elements and applied them to full-scale modelling of porogen packing and then compared the modelling predictions to structural parameters measured from porous metals made by infiltration of these packed structures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The "window" connections between pores are formed due to the inability of the PEEK powder (even after melting) to penetrate the regions between and in the vicinity of contacting salt beads. The number of connections is dictated by the coordination number for packing of the beads, which is between 5 and 6 for loose and dense random packing [27][28]. Typically 2 to 3 such windows can be seen in sectioned pores.…”
Section: Porous Structuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using spherical beads with a reasonably tight size range results in a homogenous network that is unlikely to have inaccessible areas of clustered porogen (as is likely to be the case for angular particles with a wide size distribution). The tapping process also pre-establishes the inter-particle contacts which are well-defined due to the repeatable and predictable loose or dense random packing characteristics for near-monosized spherical particles [27,28]. The level of interconnectivity achieved by tapping is sufficient, as measured by the connectivity density, to not require an additional sintering step.…”
Section: Benefits Of the Tapping Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coordination number and window radius are defined in separate equations, the coordination number as a function of the packing fraction (also shown in Eq 1), and the window radius in terms of the infiltration pressure and particle (pore) size. The model in [5] reduces to the same expression for permeability for the case of dense random particle packing if Nc = 6 (which is not atypical of this packing condition [7,8] Reasonable correlation between experimental measurements of permeability and the models was observed in both cases, with deviations attributed, in part, to the non-spherical nature of some of the salt particles used. Thus a strong dependence upon the size of the windows connecting the pores and the permeability is apparent and controlling the window size, through varying the infiltration pressure [6] has the capacity (for a given pore size) to vary the permeability by more than a factor of 10 and would be more convenient way to vary the permeability rather than by altering the packing (porosity) through additional and potentially costly processing steps.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%