4.7 Article

Comparison of solid particle erosion predictions using the dense discrete phase and discrete element models

Journal

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2022.103644

Keywords

Solid particle erosion; DDPM; DEM; High-concentration particle flow; Interaction among particles

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52171280]
  2. Taishan Scholar Project of Shandong Province

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The numerical procedure involving the dense discrete phase model (DDPM) is used to calculate solid particle erosion. DDPM works in two mechanisms to evaluate the interaction among particles and reflect the blocking effect of high-concentration particles. The predicted erosion contours of DDPM are more uniform and smoother than the DEM-predicted contours.
A numerical procedure involving the dense discrete phase model (DDPM) is used to calculate solid particle erosion. DDPM works in two mechanisms. First, the discrete particles are treated as a pseudofluid, and the interaction among particles is evaluated by solving the governing equations of the pseudofluid. Second, the equivalent pressure of the pseudofluid is applied to a single particle to reflect the blocking effect of high-concentration particles. The numerical procedure is well verified by comparison with the experimental data picked from a direct impact test. In addition, the DDPM predictions are compared with the discrete element model (DEM) predictions in detail. Both methods show that the predicted mass loss caused by sand per unit mass decreases with an increase in sand concentration. DDPM indirectly considers the influence of particle interactions on solid particle erosion, and the predicted erosion contours are more uniform and smoother than the DEM-predicted contours.(c) 2022 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier BV and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available