-
Volumes 96-107 (2025)
-
Volume 105
-
Volume 104
-
Volume 103
Pages 1-314 (August 2025)
-
Volume 102
Pages 1-276 (July 2025)
-
Volume 101
Pages 1-166 (June 2025)
-
Volume 100
Pages 1-256 (May 2025)
-
Volume 99
Pages 1-242 (April 2025)
-
Volume 98
Pages 1-288 (March 2025)
-
Volume 97
Pages 1-256 (February 2025)
-
Volume 96
Pages 1-340 (January 2025)
-
Volume 105
-
Volumes 84-95 (2024)
-
Volume 95
Pages 1-392 (December 2024)
-
Volume 94
Pages 1-400 (November 2024)
-
Volume 93
Pages 1-376 (October 2024)
-
Volume 92
Pages 1-316 (September 2024)
-
Volume 91
Pages 1-378 (August 2024)
-
Volume 90
Pages 1-580 (July 2024)
-
Volume 89
Pages 1-278 (June 2024)
-
Volume 88
Pages 1-350 (May 2024)
-
Volume 87
Pages 1-338 (April 2024)
-
Volume 86
Pages 1-312 (March 2024)
-
Volume 85
Pages 1-334 (February 2024)
-
Volume 84
Pages 1-308 (January 2024)
-
Volume 95
-
Volumes 72-83 (2023)
-
Volume 83
Pages 1-258 (December 2023)
-
Volume 82
Pages 1-204 (November 2023)
-
Volume 81
Pages 1-188 (October 2023)
-
Volume 80
Pages 1-202 (September 2023)
-
Volume 79
Pages 1-172 (August 2023)
-
Volume 78
Pages 1-146 (July 2023)
-
Volume 77
Pages 1-152 (June 2023)
-
Volume 76
Pages 1-176 (May 2023)
-
Volume 75
Pages 1-228 (April 2023)
-
Volume 74
Pages 1-200 (March 2023)
-
Volume 73
Pages 1-138 (February 2023)
-
Volume 72
Pages 1-144 (January 2023)
-
Volume 83
-
Volumes 60-71 (2022)
-
Volume 71
Pages 1-108 (December 2022)
-
Volume 70
Pages 1-106 (November 2022)
-
Volume 69
Pages 1-122 (October 2022)
-
Volume 68
Pages 1-124 (September 2022)
-
Volume 67
Pages 1-102 (August 2022)
-
Volume 66
Pages 1-112 (July 2022)
-
Volume 65
Pages 1-138 (June 2022)
-
Volume 64
Pages 1-186 (May 2022)
-
Volume 63
Pages 1-124 (April 2022)
-
Volume 62
Pages 1-104 (March 2022)
-
Volume 61
Pages 1-120 (February 2022)
-
Volume 60
Pages 1-124 (January 2022)
-
Volume 71
- Volumes 54-59 (2021)
- Volumes 48-53 (2020)
- Volumes 42-47 (2019)
- Volumes 36-41 (2018)
- Volumes 30-35 (2017)
- Volumes 24-29 (2016)
- Volumes 18-23 (2015)
- Volumes 12-17 (2014)
- Volume 11 (2013)
- Volume 10 (2012)
- Volume 9 (2011)
- Volume 8 (2010)
- Volume 7 (2009)
- Volume 6 (2008)
- Volume 5 (2007)
- Volume 4 (2006)
- Volume 3 (2005)
- Volume 2 (2004)
- Volume 1 (2003)
• An effective projected area (EPA) based analytical solution is implemented to eliminate abrupt drag variations.
• Particle-grid position classification system established and statistically validated.
• Combined face-wind and EPA classification achieves accurate particle-cell modeling.
• The continuous EPA evolution resolves traditional PCM's drag discontinuities.
• Model validated through demonstrated smoother and physically consistent transitions.
This study addresses a critical challenge in CFD-DEM simulations: the accurate assignment of drag force to fluid mesh cells when the cell size exceeds particle sizes. Traditional particle centroid method (PCM) approaches often lead to abrupt drag force variations as particles cross cell boundaries due to their discrete nature. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel algorithm that computes an analytical solution for the effective projected area (EPA) of particles within computational cells, aligned with the relative velocity direction. The drag force is then proportionally scaled according to this EPA calculation. The paper presents a specific implementation case of our algorithm, focusing on scenarios where a cell vertex resides within a particle boundary. For EPA determination, we introduce an innovative classification approach based on face-windward surface relations. Extensive validation involved 100,000 test cases with varying cell-particle relative positions (all constrained by the vertex-in-particle condition), systematically classified into 18 types using our scheme. Results demonstrate that all computed EPA values remain within theoretical bounds, confirming the classification's comprehensiveness. Through 5 classic particle movement simulations, we show that our method maintains continuous EPA variation across time steps - a marked improvement over PCM's characteristic discontinuities. Implementation within the CFD-DEM framework for single-particle sedimentation yields terminal velocities that closely match experimental data while ensuring smooth drag force transitions between fluid cells. Compared to PCM, the present method reduces the relative error in terminal settling velocity by approximately 43 %. Moreover, comparative studies of dual-particle sedimentation demonstrate our algorithm's superior performance relative to conventional PCM approaches. For Particle 1, the terminal vertical velocity predicted by the present method reduces the relative error by approximately 17 % compared to PCM. These advances significantly enhance simulation fidelity for particle-fluid interaction problems where cell-particle size ratios challenge traditional methods.
