Sensitivity Analysis of the DEM Model Numerical Parameters on the Value of the Angle of Repose of Lunar Regolith Analogs
, e
29 dic 2023
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Pubblicato online: 29 dic 2023
Pagine: 188 - 202
Ricevuto: 16 dic 2022
Accettato: 01 giu 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/arsa-2023-0022
Parole chiave
© 2023 Przemysław Młynarczyk et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Particles’ material parameters
Density (bulk density) (kg/m3) | 2900 (1740) |
Young's modulus (MPa) | 45 |
Poisson's ratio (-) | 0.5 |
AR for different DEM contact models
Mindlin–Deresiewicz | 42.58 | - | - |
Linear spring Coulomb limit | 43.00 | 45.03 | 41.40 |
Sensitivity analysis results
0.2 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 33.84 |
0.2 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 1 | 34.45 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 35.88 |
0.2 | 0.0005 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 36.42 |
0.2 | 0.0009 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.68 | 0.36 | 37.40 |
0.2 | 0.0005 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 37.40 |
0.2 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 37.87 |
0.2 | 0.0005 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 38.47 |
0.2 | 0.0015 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.68 | 0.84 | 38.47 |
0.8 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 38.69 |
0.44 | 0.0005 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 39.97 |
0.8 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.68 | 40.73 |
0.44 | 0.0005 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 1 | 41.63 |
0.56 | 0.0009 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 41.63 |
0.32 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.68 | 41.86 |
0.2 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 42.43 |
0.32 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.22 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 42.55 |
0.32 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.68 | 42.99 |
0.44 | 0.0005 | 0.4 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 1 | 43.69 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.4 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 1 | 44.26 |
0.44 | 0.0011 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 45.72 |
0.2 | 0.0015 | 0.28 | 0.1 | 0.68 | 0.84 | 46.94 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.34 | 0.4 | 0.56 | 0.2 | 47.00 |
0.2 | 0.0015 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.68 | 0.84 | 47.20 |
0.2 | 0.0015 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.68 | 0.36 | 47.54 |
0.68 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 47.95 |
0.44 | 0.0005 | 0.34 | 0.4 | 0.56 | 0.2 | 48.32 |
0.32 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 48.56 |
0.56 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 48.68 |
0.2 | 0.0015 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.36 | 49.37 |
0.68 | 0.0005 | 0.22 | 0.4 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 49.69 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.56 | 0.2 | 49.86 |
0.56 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.2 | 50.49 |
0.56 | 0.0009 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.84 | 51.93 |
0.56 | 0.0005 | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 52.16 |
0.56 | 0.0015 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.84 | 52.42 |
0.56 | 0.0009 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.68 | 0.36 | 52.70 |
0.56 | 0.0009 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 0.8 | 0.84 | 53.48 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.56 | 0.2 | 53.65 |
0.56 | 0.0009 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.84 | 54.97 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.4 | 0.22 | 0.68 | 1 | 55.15 |
0.56 | 0.0009 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.8 | 0.84 | 57.67 |
0.56 | 0.0015 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.36 | 58.06 |
0.56 | 0.0011 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 59.11 |
0.68 | 0.0011 | 0.22 | 0.4 | 0.56 | 0.68 | 59.65 |
0.8 | 0.0005 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.68 | 1 | 61.26 |
0.56 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.2 | 61.70 |
0.56 | 0.0011 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 63.71 |
0.56 | 0.0011 | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 64.06 |
Materials’ interaction parameters used in the grain size and contact model analyses
Static friction (−) | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Dynamic friction (−) | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Tangential stiffness ratio (−) | 1 | 1 |
Adhesive distance (m) | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
Force fraction (−) | 0.2 | 0 |
Restitution coefficient (−) | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Ranges of variability of the contact model parameters used in the sensitivity analysis
p1 | Friction coefficient ( |
0.2 | 0.5 |
p2 | Adhesive distance ( |
0.0005 | 0.0015 |
p3 | Force fraction ( |
0.1 | 0.4 |
p4 | Restitution coefficient ( |
0.1 | 0.4 |
p5 | Rolling resistance ( |
0.2 | 0.8 |
p6 | Tangential stiffness ratio ( |
0.2 | 1.0 |
Computation time for different DEM contact models
Mindlin–Deresiewicz | 117.73 | - | - |
Linear spring Coulomb limit | 122.93 | 181.41 | 237.09 |