Next Article in Journal
An Improved Multi-Relaxation Time Lattice Boltzmann Method for the Non-Newtonian Influence of the Yielding Fluid Flow in Cement-3D Printing
Previous Article in Journal
Time-Lapse Helical X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) Study of Tensile Fatigue Damage Formation in Composites for Wind Turbine Blades
Open AccessArticle

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

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, C/Luis de Ulloa, 20, 26004 Logroño, Spain
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, Business Administration and Statistics, Polythecnic University of Madrid, C/José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain
3
Visiting Scholar at École Polytechnique, Route de Saclay, 91128 Palaiseau, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2018, 11(11), 2341; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341
Received: 3 October 2018 / Revised: 9 November 2018 / Accepted: 17 November 2018 / Published: 21 November 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Porous Materials)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: powder compaction; discrete element method (DEM); cohesive contact models; LIGGGHTS; EDEM powder compaction; discrete element method (DEM); cohesive contact models; LIGGGHTS; EDEM
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramírez-Aragón, C.; Ordieres-Meré, J.; Alba-Elías, F.; González-Marcos, A. Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction. Materials 2018, 11, 2341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341

AMA Style

Ramírez-Aragón C, Ordieres-Meré J, Alba-Elías F, González-Marcos A. Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction. Materials. 2018; 11(11):2341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramírez-Aragón, Cristina; Ordieres-Meré, Joaquín; Alba-Elías, Fernando; González-Marcos, Ana. 2018. "Comparison of Cohesive Models in EDEM and LIGGGHTS for Simulating Powder Compaction" Materials 11, no. 11: 2341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11112341

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop