Which parameter might extend the flow span after impact on a rockbox?

John Li
John Li Altair Community Member
edited March 18 in Community Q&A

I'm currently conducting chute flow simulations. In actuality, the material flow impacts first rockbox and then impact second rockbox on opposite wall. However, my simulated flow fails to reach second rockbox. I've experimented with three different parameter combinations, all of which adhere to the repose angle and bulk density requirements. Unfortunately, none of them enable the flow to reach the second rockbox. Could you please advise me on which parameter might extend the flow span?

Tagged:

Answers

  • Stephen Cole
    Stephen Cole
    Altair Employee
    edited March 18

    Hi John,

    It looks like the material needs to build up in the first rock box in order for the flow to reach the second one.

    You can pre-fill the first rock box with the volume packing tool to represent this, as in reality the build up may have occurred over a long time period.

    It may also be that the simulation isn't stable which is preventing the build-up, the case COR0.65, SF0.2, RF0.1, JKR2 looks to have exploded, a lower time-step may create a more stable case and show the build up.

    Often there is a lip in the rock boxes to help retain material and I don't see this in the case.  We have seen cases where the 3D CAD 'as designed' doesn't quite match the 'as built' on site chute, I may be good to confirm if there is a lip on the rock box which is helping retain material or any additional wear liners which may be also influencing the flow.

    Regards

    Stephen

  • John Li
    John Li Altair Community Member
    edited March 18

    Hi Stephen,

     

    Thanks very much for your advise. You are correct. When a pile built in the first rockbox, then the trajectory span is increased. I changed parameters to COR0.005, SF0.93, RF0.15 and JRK0 with same repose angle. COR0.65 made particle bounce everywhere.

     

    Thanks,

     

    John

Categories