Dear all,
I have noticed quite a significant difference when generating the bed of particles in a Fluid bed with DEM using the particle-input file and the automatic generation of particles option. In this case which is a more reliable method? I am not very conversant with creation of a particle -input file so how can I use the automatic generation morel reliably ?
I am new, too. But here is what I have done to auto-generate the particles.
Set a region that you want to packing, and then give the IC of that region. In IC, specifying the volume fraction in your particle phase panel(show as the name you gave before).
By the way, I think it is a good idea to create the particle_input.dat file by creating an excel (the auto-fill function is convenient). You can start from mimicing the dem tutorial case to create your own partilce_input.
2 Likes
Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. particle_input.dat files are good if you know exactly what you want. For example, you want a very specific initial pattern. However, in many cases, the initial particle configuration is of no interest so spending the time to craft an input deck is wasted. Additionally, input files can get prohibitively large (file size) when the particle count increases.
One of the handy features of the auto-generated particles is that they ‘know’ the geometry and can avoid particles initially touching walls. However you have to be a little careful to make sure you get the inventory you want.
2 Likes
Thank you jmusser for that insight!