tailorcrete:examples:slump-flow
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
tailorcrete:examples:slump-flow [2012/07/25 16:07] – kolarfil | tailorcrete:examples:slump-flow [2012/09/13 09:54] (current) – improved formatting, corrected some typos bp | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ==== Slump flow test ==== | + | ===== Slump flow test ===== |
- | === Test setup and Geometry === | + | ==== Test setup and Geometry |
- | This section presents results of slump flow simulations. It is a typical test usually | + | This test is a typical test used to check consistency of a fresh concrete |
- | {{: | + | |{{: |
+ | |Fig.1: The geometry of Abrams cone slump test| | ||
- | === Computational Model === | + | ==== Computational Model ==== |
- | The problem is modeled in axisymmetric setting due to the rotational symmetry | + | Due to the rotational symmetry, the problem |
+ | *density 2300 kg/m3, | ||
+ | *yield stress 40 Pa, | ||
+ | *viscosity 20 Pa.s. | ||
+ | The simulations were performed with different type of friction conditions assumed on horizontal plate. The full slip as well as | ||
+ | different friction coefficients have been considered. The friction coefficient has been set to 0.0, 0.01, 0.1 and 5.0. A significant difference in flow patterns for different friction coefficient can be observed. | ||
- | {{: | + | |{{: |
+ | |Fig. 2: The setup of the computatinal model|Fig.3: | ||
- | The mesh is shown on the next picture. It is refined near the botom surface to improve accuracy of the interface capturing. The simulations were done using | ||
- | Bingham model (corresponding to self compacting concrete with very low yield stress) with the | ||
- | following parameters: density 2300 kg/m3, yield stress 40 Pa, viscosity 20 Pa.s. The simulations were performed for | ||
- | different type of friction conditions assumed on horizontal plate. The full slip as well as | ||
- | different friction coefficients has been considered. The friction coefficient is sequentially equal to 0.0, 0.01, 0.1 and 5.0. Significant difference in flows for different friction coefficient can be observed. | ||
- | {{: | + | The computational mesh is shown on the Figure 3. It has been refined near the botom surface to improve accuracy of the boundary layer prediction as well as improved interface capturing. The triangular elements with eqaul order interpolation of velocity and pressure fields have been used. Since that element is not satisfying LBB condition, PSPG stabilization is used for preventing oscilations in pressure field. SUPG stabilization improving accuracy in connection with non-linear convective term is also used. For further information, |
- | === Results === | + | The example |
- | On the next four videos, the influence | + | |
- | {{: | + | ==== Results ==== |
+ | On the next four videos, the influence of boundary condition on the flow is illustrated. The Different values of friction coefficient were assumed (equal to 0, 0.01, 0.1 and 5.). Parameters of the Bingham model for concrete were following: yeld stress 40 [Pa], plastic viscosity 20 [Pa.s], and density 2300 [kg/m3]. | ||
- | {{: | + | |{{video> |
+ | |Friction coefficient 0.0 | Friction coefficient 0.01 | | ||
+ | |{{video> | ||
+ | |Friction coefficient 0.1 | Friction coefficient 5.0 | | ||
- | {{: | + | On the next figure, the overall influence of friction is illustrated. Final spreading shape of SCC is plotted for different values of friction coefficient. Comparison with analytical solution of simplified problem is made (for further reference, see: [1]) |
- | {{: | + | |{{: |
+ | |Fig. 4: Final spreading shape or different values of friction coefficient.| | ||
- | On the next figure, influence of friction is shown. Final spreading shape of SCC is plotted for different values of friction. Comparison with analytical solution of simplified problem is made (for further reference, see: ROUSSEL N COUSSOT P, “Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress | + | ==== References ==== |
+ | [1] ROUSSEL N COUSSOT P, “Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress | ||
measurements : from slump to spreading flow, Journal of Rheology, 49(3) (2005) | measurements : from slump to spreading flow, Journal of Rheology, 49(3) (2005) | ||
705-718.) | 705-718.) | ||
- | {{: | + | [2] BARTH, T.; SETHIAN, J.A. (2009), Numerical Schemes for the HamiltonJacobi and Level Set Equations on Triangu- |
- | + | lated Domains. Journal of computational physics, 145 1-40. | |
- | Example input file is here: {{: | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Description of input file can be found here: [[tailorcrete: | + | |
+ | [3] TEZDUYAR, T : Stabilized Finite Element Formulations for Incompressible Flow Computations, | ||
+ | Applied Mechanics, Volume 28, 1991, Pages 1-44 | ||
tailorcrete/examples/slump-flow.1343225255.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/07/25 16:07 by kolarfil